W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2010

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 19:49:10 +0200
Message-ID: <4BFD5F16.201@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 18.05.2010 14:41, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Hi,
> i have done some more work on this, and now have reached a stage where
> request-target is only be used when we really mean it. Almost everywhere
> else we now use the new term "Effective Request URI".
> See
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/196/i196.7.diff>.
> Reminder: there are a few open questions on which I still like to see
> feedback:
> #1 request-target "*"
> The message syntax allows "*" as request-target, for which no HTTP URI
> syntax is defined
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#rfc.section.2.6.3>
> defines "/" and empty path to be equivalent).
> On the other hand, special-casing "*" might be tricky, so for *Effective
> Request URI*, we *do* define a serialization (with empty path).
> #2 comparing effective request URIs
> We currently define comparison to be consistent with normal HTTP URI
> comparison, except that we skip the part that makes empty paths and "/"
> equivalent (due to #1). As far as I can tell, comparison of effective
> request URIs is only relevant in the context of caching; and the
> responses to "OPTIONS *" aren't cacheable anyway, so maybe we don't need
> to special-case this.
> #3 new term for "resource identified by effective request URI"
> In many places, the spec tries to talk about the URI addressed by the
> request (and historically used request-URI for that). It would be very
> convenient if we defined the term "addressed resource" for that (to be
> defined in
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#rfc.section.2.6.3>;
> this might also allow to get rid of a few cases where we currently
> (still) use "requested resource" or "requested variant".
> ...

For now I have applied the proposed patch to the -latest draft, see 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/823>. This should 
make it easier to discuss what's left to do.

We still need to decide on the issues above (and yes, there's feedback 
from Henrik I haven't processed yet).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2010 17:49:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:53 UTC