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

Re: port #?

From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:17:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCvQ-XLQDSBvv9OieMoshm0T6ddVyptB6SMn89fHN-Ldw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Eliot,

Some comments in-line.

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> 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.
>

Other httpbis documents obsolete 2616, so we should refer to those, rather
than 2616.


> 2.  We pull the HTTP URI definition out and produce a small document for
> it separately and refer to that, updating RFC-2616.
>
3.  We include the URI definition in the HTTP2 draft.
>

If it needs to be re-iterated, I think having the reiteration within the
HTTP2 draft is fine.  But simply referring to whatever RFC
draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-13 becomes seems simpler.  That reinforces
the idea that HTTP2 and HTTP share the same URI synatx.



> 4.  We abstract the connection model entirely from the document.
> 5.  We specify that unless specified within a URI, the default protocol
> is TCP and the default port is 80.
>
> This all came to light because of interest to do some work with HTTP2
> using something other than TCP.  Thus, one might thing that [4] is the
> appropriate thing to do, but my experience with BEEP is that it lends
> itself to an ugly set of documents and violates the KISS principle.  To
> that end, I recommend the text in [5] be added for now, and that as
> HTTP2 matures we consider [2] later.
>
> So, I think saying that new transports may mint new URI schemes
(http.newfangled) is safe enough; they may.  But I'm not sure whether that
adds much value.  What's the harm in simply referring to
draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging for the URI syntax and leaving it at that
for the moment?

regards,

Ted



> Specifically, OLD:
>
>    The HTTP/2.0 session runs atop TCP ([RFC0793]).  The client is the
>    TCP connection initiator.
>
> NEW:
>
>    Unless otherwise specified within a URI, an HTTP/2.0 session runs
>    atop TCP ([RFC0793]) and a client initiates a server on port 80.
>
> Eliot
>
>
Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 20:17:29 UTC

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