Re: Op-sec simplification

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>: (Tue Nov  1 01:17:04 2016)
> 
> > 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.

That may be good idea. (This spec requires scheme and http/1.1 spec does not
allow scheme to be used. )

> 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?

Well, I suggested that on https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2016OctDec/0102.html

|  This specification registers a (HTTP) Status Codes:
|
|  [TO BE REMOVED: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code Registry
|   http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xhtml ]
|
|   +-------+-------------------------------+-------------+
|   | Value | Description                   | Reference   |
|   +-------+-------------------------------+-------------+
|   | TBD1  | Scheme Not Allowed            | Section 2.2 |
|   | TBD2  | Scheme Required               | Section 2.1 |
|   +-------+-------------------------------+-------------+
|
|   [TO BE REMOVED: TBD1 and TBD2 are from 4xx range. ]

 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 

/ Kari Hurtta

Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2016 05:25:47 UTC