W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: *** GMX Spamverdacht *** Re: #550 handling mismatches between socket connection and host header field

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:14:07 +0100
Message-ID: <52D859AF.9060207@gmx.de>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-01-16 23:00, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Julian Reschke wrote:
>> During IESG review, Ted Lemon came up with this interesting DISCUSS
>> (<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/550>):
>> I (telnet-)tested this with various servers, and they don't seem to
>> bother checking the port number.
>> So we could clarify that this request is invalid, but I'm not sure we
>> can add a normative requirement to fail the request.
> It seems it would also be possible to say the actual port connected to
> takes precedence (where applicable). Would that cause any problems?

"takes precedence" implies that the port portion of the host header 
field value always is ignored, right? Not sure whether we want to say that.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 22:14:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:23 UTC