- From: Eric Lawrence <ericlaw@exchange.microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:57:37 +0000
- To: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
FWIW, this is going to get much more relevant as WebSockets will make the practice of CONNECT'ing to non-443 ports much more common. -----Original Message----- From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Stenberg Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 4:06 AM To: Amos Jeffries Cc: HTTP Working Group Subject: Re: part 1 section 4.1.2 - authority form On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Amos Jeffries wrote: > Part 2 on CONNECT appears to document this as wrong, but uses port 80 > which is a little bit ambiguous given that CONNECT are usually used > for 443. Am I right in assuming that it means the port is always > required on CONNECT request Host: headers? (despite the obvious redundancy). Many years ago we had curl include the port number unconditionally in Host: headers, only to switch it off again since there were too many proxies/servers out there that didn't like Host: headers with the default port given. In short: when doing HTTPS (CONNECT) curl doesn't include port 443 in the Host: header. When doing HTTP, curl doesn't include port 80 in the Host: header. -- / daniel.haxx.se
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 16:58:16 UTC