- From: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2022 16:59:05 -0700
- To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPDSy+7WX+WzxtXWs1CZiMNAOR9+xxi5XqpO8Xr0A7zCuRWoXg@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks for looking into this Lucas, it does seem to indicate this was unintentional. I filed an errata to keep track of this: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7014 David On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 1:55 PM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > I did some digging around the repos and found that: > > * HTTP/3 introduced the text about :path in > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3352, which was based in large > part on RFC 7540. > * During the 7540bis work, issue > https://github.com/httpwg/http2-spec/issues/906 was opened by Willy > noting "incompatibility between HTTP/1 and HTTP semantics definition of > absolute-path and H2's use of RFC3986's path-absolute". This was resolved > in PR https://github.com/httpwg/http2-spec/pull/910, which moved to > absolute-path. > > So it seems that unfortunately, RFC 9114 didn't pull across a similar > update to use absolute-path and is left with a similar inconsistency that > was noted in RFC 7540. I suspect this wasn't done intentionally but I'll > let Mike correct me if I'm missing something. > > Cheers > Lucas > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 9:36 PM David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Howdy HTTP enthusiasts, >> >> Today I was trying to answer the question "can an HTTP path start with >> two slashes?". To me, that question was equivalent to "Is the following URI >> valid? https://example.org//foo" >> >> I did some digging into the specs, and noticed something odd: >> In HTTP/3, the :path pseudo-header uses "path-absolute" [1] >> In HTTP/2, the :path pseudo-header uses "absolute-path" [2] >> In HTTP/1.1, origin-form uses "absolute-path" [3] >> "absolute-path" allows paths that start with "//" but "path-absolute"does >> not [4] >> >> So, does that mean that the answer to my question above depends on which >> underlying HTTP version is in use? If yes, was that intentional? >> >> Thanks, >> David >> >> [1] >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114.html#name-request-pseudo-header-field >> [2] >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9113.html#name-request-pseudo-header-field >> [3] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9112.html#name-origin-form >> [4] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#name-uri-references >> >
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2022 00:05:13 UTC