On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 9:42 AM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022, at 09:58, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa wrote: > > I think 2) is valid in terms of RFC 7540, but it suddenly becomes > > invalid in terms of RFC 9113? > > Is this correct? https://www.fastly.com and https://www.google.com now > > reject 2). > > My understanding is that both are valid alternatives. As would a third > option that contained the same value in both host and :authority. The 4xx > responses you are getting are (probably) compliance bugs. > > Thankfully we know people who might be closer to someone who is able to > fix or defend those bugs. (On CC). > > This whole host and :authority thing was an original mistake in HTTP/2. > It was grounded in the view that HTTP/2 had to faithfully capture every > weird thing HTTP/1.1 could express, even when it didn't make sense. At the > time, that was pragmatic and it might have aided deployment into systems > that were, on some levels, broken. In time, we should seek to remove those > exceptions. In the revision, we did some of that by disallowing different > values. > > Thank you for clarification. Wait and see the deployments are resolved. Best, Tatsuhiro TsujikawaReceived on Wednesday, 29 June 2022 09:14:11 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:44:07 UTC