httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm>
Subject Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname (65-character.long.DNS.name.com) too long
Date Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:45:04 GMT
On 07 Feb 2018, at 8:36 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:

> But there is no argument for a name identifier >255 characters ... the cited RFC
> and the filesystem and so many others use this as the conventional constraint
> on an identifier.
> 
> Why double that?

Because the part of the URL that matters to the admin might be at the end, as in Dirk’s
example. If we’ve consumed the whole length on the hostname, we leave nothing for the URL
itself.

Eg: https://very-very-long-hostname/foo/bar/baz/veryimportant1 and https://very-very-long-hostname/foo/bar/baz/veryimportant2

The burning question is - are these fields only used for debugging, and therefore an approximation
is fine, or are they used for something else where precision is required?

Regards,
Graham
—


Mime
View raw message