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: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:48:50 +1200
Message-ID: <53D19B62.2080907@treenet.co.nz>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
CC: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On 25/07/2014 5:26 a.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Er, :authority?

Is routinely omitted in HTTP/1.0 port 80 requests without Host: header.
Recipient is required to assume itself.

Amos

> 
> On 24 Jul 2014, at 11:49 am, Michael Sweet wrote:
> 
>> I think for OPTIONS the client can omit all but the :method pseudo header.  In any case, I'm +1 on clarifying this in the spec, particularly for "OPTIONS *".
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>
>>> On 24 July 2014 08:14, Amos Jeffries  wrote:
>>>> IMHO it be more correct to say simply that :path may be omitted on
>>>> OPTIONS and represents a request for "*" asterisk-form? as opposed to a
>>>> 0-length :path field which represents the path-empty case.
>>>
>>> That would permit a more correct reconstruction of the original 1.1 request.
>>>
>>> I think that I need a second opinion before making such a change. What
>>> do others think?
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________
>> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>>
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2014 23:49:35 UTC

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