- From: Michael Sweet <msweet@msweet.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 09:47:28 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Julian, > On Mar 10, 2023, at 3:01 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 07.03.2023 18:39, Justin Richer wrote: >> ... >>> All of section 2.2 seems to assume that we’re dealing only with HTTP >>> URLs. This >>> assumption should be made explicit. >> >> This specification is signing for HTTP messages. What other URLs would >> there be at play here? It seems redundant to call it out, especially >> because we’re using the terms from the HTTP semantics specification to >> define the components. >> ... > > HTTP can in theory also be used to access resources with non-HTTP(s) > URIs. In HTTP/1.1, you can use the absolute form of the request target > for that. > > Is it common? No (I believe). IPP uses this mechanism (ipp: and ipps: URIs specify IPP over HTTP/HTTPS), and with billions of IPP printers out there I think we can call it common. :) (but I doubt IPP will use this mechanism for ensuring message integrity...) ________________________ Michael Sweet
Received on Friday, 10 March 2023 21:40:40 UTC