- From: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 20:48:22 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
tis 2010-05-18 klockan 14:41 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:
> The message syntax allows "*" as request-target, for which no HTTP URI
> syntax is defined
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#rfc.section.2.6.3>
> defines "/" and empty path to be equivalent).
Didn't we reinstate the * rule regarding this? Yes we did.
http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#rfc.section.4.1.2
and a trivial editorial correction needed there:
old:
except as noted above to replace a null path-absolute with "/".
new:
except as noted above to replace a null path-absolute with "/" or "*".
> #2 comparing effective request URIs
>
> We currently define comparison to be consistent with normal HTTP URI
> comparison, except that we skip the part that makes empty paths and "/"
> equivalent (due to #1). As far as I can tell, comparison of effective
> request URIs is only relevant in the context of caching; and the
> responses to "OPTIONS *" aren't cacheable anyway, so maybe we don't need
> to special-case this.
Agreed. I do not think a special case is needed.
But a note about the "*" mapping maybe, to aid future protocol
extensions.
But this said, it may be worthwhile adding a rule that clients should
not sent a null path-absolute unless they do infact mean the whole
server ("*"), basically restricting such uses to OPTIONS. Most clients
seem to behave like this anyway.
Regards
Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 18:48:56 UTC