W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:07:23 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FDB84B50-AE44-4033-8F5B-D6FF80B8CB67@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Flipping this to editorial; I don't think there's a design aspect to  
this one (it's just specifying something already present more clearly).

On 09/10/2009, at 1:52 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Note that 'request-URI' is used here; however, we need to come up  
>>>> with a term to denote "the URI that can be inferred from  
>>>> examining the request-target and the Host header."
>>> I think the term "Request-URI" makes a lot of sense, because it  
>>> already is in use for that purpose (although in RFC2616 it didn't  
>>> mean exactly that).
>> Makes sense.
>>> The definition will need to go into P1, Section 4. Mark, are you  
>>> going to open a ticket for that one?
>> Now <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/196>.
>>>> Also, the comparison function is going to have to be defined  
>>>> somewhere, because we already need to compare URIs for things  
>>>> like cache invalidation.
>>> Any reason why we can't use P1, Section 2.6.3? (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#uri.comparison 
>>> >)
>> Think so, yes.
>> ...
> I noticed that Strict Transport Security (STS) (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Sep/att-0051/draft-hodges-strict-transport-sec-05.plain.html 
> >) calls this "Effective Request URI", which I think makes a lot of  
> sense.
> BR, Julian

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 15 October 2009 04:07:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:12 GMT