W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: port #?

From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:10:00 +0200
Message-ID: <51B1A368.6030209@cisco.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Julian,

Right you are.  So... propose some text?

Eliot



On 6/7/13 10:36 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2013-06-07 10:02, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I note that we still haven't cleaned up the connection model
>> sufficiently.  When someone implements a specification they need to know
>> at least the port number to connect to. This is the document that has to
>> specify at least at a bare minimum how that happens.  This can be
>> handled in at least one of four ways:
>>
>> 1.  We refer to RFC-2616 normatively.  This implies that we will not
>> obsolete 2616 at this time.  If we do so later we would need to pull the
>> HTTP URI definition out and update the IANA definition.
>
> Hm, no. draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging is what's relevant (and should
> stay relevant).
>
>> ...
>
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 09:10:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC