W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2022

Re: RFC 9113 and :authority header field

From: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 13:15:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPDSy+5VzsyqBM3r3cG3LdX=-aQ1wALQGDyUsfPqs_sB0npvYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Ah I see, the detail I missed was that in HTTP/1.1 the Host header is not
part of control data when using relative URLs. Thanks for clarifying.

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:52 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022, at 05:42, David Schinazi wrote:
> > <<An intermediary that forwards a request over HTTP/2 MUST construct an
> > ":authority" pseudo-header field using the authority information from
> > the control data of the original request, unless the original request's
> > target URI does not contain authority information (in which case it MUST
> NOT generate ":authority").>>
> Note the restoration of the final missing parenthetical.
> > Am I misunderstanding something?
> The distinction here is between requests that a client creates for itself
> and requests that it is forwarding.
> The interpretation from Stefan is right: if you forward a request that
> only has Host and not :authority (perhaps because it came in HTTP/1.1) then
> you include "host" and not ":authority" in HTTP/2.
> Consider also that not every HTTP/2 client conforms to RFC 9113; there are
> a number that conform to the language in RFC 7540.
> (If your next point is that this could be clearer in the spec, I'm not
> going to disagree with you.)
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2022 20:15:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:44:07 UTC