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

Re: port #?

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:30:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXSZ9B3SjMHJCQFjAf6uGL3f-7Nkt6-ZuAMwSr+7orjaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Everything that Ted says, plus I think that the suggested text isn't
quite the right place.  We talk about using the same "http:" and
"https:" schemes in Section 2.  It would be relatively easy to add
"...and ports" to the following statement:

OLD:
   HTTP/2.0 uses the same "http:" and "https:" URI schemes used by HTTP/1.1.
ADD:
   HTTP/2.0 also shares the same default port numbers: 80 for "http:"
URIs and 443 for "https:" URIs.

That would address option 5, remove any ambiguity, etc...

On 7 June 2013 13:17, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 20:30:39 UTC

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