- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:17:04 +1100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On 1 Nov. 2016, at 10:15 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 1 November 2016 at 09:41, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> Hold on -- are we layering in a new requirement to use the absolute form of the URL? > > I don't know how we carry the scheme any other way. We might try to > weasel this as being not "directly" to the origin server. > > Maybe I should point out that this is in contradiction to that section. I suspect someone with a process bent will say that it needs to update 7230, and having an experimental doc update a standards track one might be... interesting. I suppose if we have consensus to do it, it might work. > (FWIW, the servers I'm aware of all handle absolute URIs well enough.) Is there an implicit requirement for them to check that it was absolute? -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 31 October 2016 23:17:37 UTC