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

Re: #421: Mixed Schemes

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 15:37:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVSmWAY__uevdmrit3udaHPqNPcxas=rF9poMKzez90wg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 30 March 2014 00:34, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> My recollection of discussion here was that in principle, people aren't against mixed schemes *in general* (as there are some sensible use cases for them), but that specific schemes in particular situations do bring up various problems.
>
> Since this issue is about noting that it's possible -- NOT permitting it in any circumstance -- I think we can instruct the editor to note this without being too expansive.

Proposed text (in discussion of the :scheme pseudo-header field):

      This header field is primarily intended to allow a server to
      distinguish between "http:" or "https:" URIs in requests.  HTTP/2
      doesn't prevent clients from making requests for other URI
      schemes, but the semantics of requests for non-HTTP schemes is not
      defined in this document.

I could reference the new Not Authoritative status code, but I think
that this is sufficient.  This just marks this as "undefined
behaviour"; others can define semantics (and they already do), but we
don't need to do anything more than note the possibility here.
Received on Monday, 31 March 2014 22:37:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:25 UTC