W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: effective request URI/target URI, issues 221 & 222, was: Issues addressed by the -10 drafts

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:47:24 -0700
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7C545944-8ADF-40B1-95E9-43EE68FE6297@gbiv.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On Jul 23, 2010, at 12:48 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 22.07.2010 23:13, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 2010, at 5:56 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> #196 Term for the requested resource's URI (editorial)*
>> BTW, I have been trying to work with this phrase
>> (the Effective Request URI) in my edits and have found it
>> cumbersome and painful to read -- it tends to obscure
>> whatever else is in the same sentence.
>> Is there some reason we can't just call it the target URI?
>> ...
> I think we *can* call them "target URI". The reason we picked "Effective Request URI" is that we stole it from Jeff's STS spec, and I found the term made it clear that this is something that may need to be computed from various bits on the wire.
> If we change it, of course STS should follow that change.
> That being said, there are a few things left to do, no matter how we call it:
> 1) There's currently some overlap between 4.2 (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#the.resource.identified.by.a.request> and 4.3 (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#effective.request.uri>). Maybe that should be reduced?

Yes, they should be merged, and 4.1 needs to be reorganized as well
to be more readable.

> 2) Does eURI/target URI need to handle the case of HTTP/1.0 requests without Host header? (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/221>)

Yes, though we should be clear that HTTP/1.0 requests should also
have Host defined -- it just isn't required for legacy stuff.

> 3) Is the current strategy of handling the request-target of "*" the right one? (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/222>)

I think so, though we should verify implementations before
last call.

Received on Friday, 23 July 2010 08:47:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:47 UTC