W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:26:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXHvXND1+gsCBvwe+a0zhzZQJXjrQ9BKnoUUQb96DK__Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On 24 July 2014 10:18, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> I believe this is right, but it seems to me we really need a set of examples
> to make sure we got everything right.


My question, that I think requires a little more proxy chops than I
have is this:

What is the form of an options request to a given origin when directed
to a proxy:

   OPTIONS * HTTP/1.1
   Host: example.com:80


   OPTIONS http://example.com:80* HTTP/1.1


Reading RFC 3986 it appears that the following is ambiguous, because
'*' is a valid part of the reg-name construction:

   OPTIONS http://example.com* HTTP/1.1

That suggests the former variant is the only valid form.
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2014 17:26:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC