- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:54:10 +1100
- To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2 November 2016 at 04:33, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote: > I think the case for TBD2 is that the client sent an "ambiguous" request -- that is, connecting over port 443 and not specifying http:// or https://, but just sending e.g. GET /resource. I think my rationale could be restated more simply as: "there is always a scheme, just that HTTP/1.1 requires that it be implicit". BTW, Kari's example of an opportunistic-only server can be handled by 421.
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2016 00:54:43 UTC