- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:52:34 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > ... >>> Note that 'request-URI' is used here; however, we need to come up >>> with a term to denote "the URI that can be inferred from examining >>> the request-target and the Host header." >> >> I think the term "Request-URI" makes a lot of sense, because it >> already is in use for that purpose (although in RFC2616 it didn't mean >> exactly that). > > Makes sense. > >> The definition will need to go into P1, Section 4. Mark, are you going >> to open a ticket for that one? > > Now <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/196>. > >> >>> Also, the comparison function is going to have to be defined >>> somewhere, because we already need to compare URIs for things like >>> cache invalidation. >> >> Any reason why we can't use P1, Section 2.6.3? >> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#uri.comparison>) >> > > Think so, yes. > ... I noticed that Strict Transport Security (STS) (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Sep/att-0051/draft-hodges-strict-transport-sec-05.plain.html>) calls this "Effective Request URI", which I think makes a lot of sense. BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 14:53:16 UTC