- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:14:07 +0100
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-01-16 23:00, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Julian Reschke wrote: >> During IESG review, Ted Lemon came up with this interesting DISCUSS >> (<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/550>): > >> I (telnet-)tested this with various servers, and they don't seem to >> bother checking the port number. >> >> So we could clarify that this request is invalid, but I'm not sure we >> can add a normative requirement to fail the request. > > It seems it would also be possible to say the actual port connected to > takes precedence (where applicable). Would that cause any problems? "takes precedence" implies that the port portion of the host header field value always is ignored, right? Not sure whether we want to say that. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 22:14:42 UTC