Re: Martin Duke's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-16: (with COMMENT)

I've broken this out into a separate issue because it's a bit subtle: <https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues/865>

There are two issues here:

1) The protocol-name doesn't reflect the scheme in use, for HTTPS, it's still 'HTTP'. The practical implication of that is that when HTTPS is used, the port needs to be explicit, even if it's the default for HTTPS. A clarifying note might help here.

2) HTTP/3 uses UDP, not TCP. Omitting 'TCP' from the MAY requirement might help.

Cheers,


> On 16 Jun 2021, at 8:19 am, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I understand that schemes match to ports, but I believe the via field does not contain the scheme info that would tell you this.
> 
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 2:35 PM John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
> I think I found the answer to this during my own review. RFC 7230 Sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 define the http and https URI schemes, and specify that they have default ports of 80 and 443, respectively. 
> 
> $0.02,
> 
> —John
> 
> > On Jun 10, 2021, at 4:02 PM, Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> > 
> > (7.6.3) Via
> > 
> > "If a port is not provided, a recipient MAY interpret that as meaning it was
> > received on the default TCP port, if any, for the received-protocol."
> > 
> > So if received-protocol is "3", it's a UDP port.
> > 
> > If received-protocol is "1" or "1.1", is the default port 80 or 443? IIUC the
> > scheme isn't included to determine this.

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

Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2021 23:38:18 UTC