Re: port #?
Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Mon, 10 June 2013 08:58 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1473821F88AC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.742
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XbONVwPIpAjT for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97EB121F881F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UlxtK-00067h-IV for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:55:54 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:55:54 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UlxtK-00067h-IV@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <lear@cisco.com>) id 1Ulxt7-00066u-0Q for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:55:41 +0000
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <lear@cisco.com>) id 1Ulxt5-0005xQ-Cb for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:55:40 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3721; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1370854539; x=1372064139; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k7yCxY8y14ph0yE1fSVyV5eSTwh1qjCnJcVfnikA/n4=; b=B5fGPXosxm5ETEBvfy2p5mDE4CumL5vwD54bJD3fcvDhR6UWpd4oGv+w A+kMx/uR42Jw+onQy5MVCk2pP2Q47kqknoSdXE45XbbUqmVseHN+Gh6f4 jLgtWuk3HnkjL/kq9VDDoOnu6/aGBf62BurSunNDn9+EuwNKEd5Z+uVvK g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgQFABSUtVGQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABagwkwgz27Sn4WdIIjAQEBBCNVARALDgoCAgUUAgsCAgkDAgECAQ8cGgYNAQUCAQGHdwMPp3aIEA2IUoEmizWCXQeCTIEUA5VZgWeMHoUkgysg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,835,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="155125496"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Jun 2013 08:55:12 +0000
Received: from mctiny.local ([10.61.171.98]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5A8t9aX000362 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:55:10 GMT
Message-ID: <51B59471.1080400@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 04:55:13 -0400
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <51B1937B.70808@cisco.com> <CA+9kkMCvQ-XLQDSBvv9OieMoshm0T6ddVyptB6SMn89fHN-Ldw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXSZ9B3SjMHJCQFjAf6uGL3f-7Nkt6-ZuAMwSr+7orjaA@mail.gmail.com> <EC16AB59-8F1C-4704-A7C0-A098DD735977@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <EC16AB59-8F1C-4704-A7C0-A098DD735977@mnot.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=144.254.224.140; envelope-from=lear@cisco.com; helo=ams-iport-1.cisco.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.552, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.125, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Ulxt5-0005xQ-Cb 3f9d494c0a6b623e4e89902edc6c76fd
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: port #?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51B59471.1080400@cisco.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18211
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
It's fine by me too. So would be referencing draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging, as Julian suggests. Eliot On 6/9/13 9:40 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Fine by me, as long as people don't (yet) read this as precluding using another port if we have external, non-URI information (e.g, a DNS record). > > Cheers, > > > On 08/06/2013, at 5:30 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Everything that Ted says, plus I think that the suggested text isn't >> quite the right place. We talk about using the same "http:" and >> "https:" schemes in Section 2. It would be relatively easy to add >> "...and ports" to the following statement: >> >> OLD: >> HTTP/2.0 uses the same "http:" and "https:" URI schemes used by HTTP/1.1. >> ADD: >> HTTP/2.0 also shares the same default port numbers: 80 for "http:" >> URIs and 443 for "https:" URIs. >> >> That would address option 5, remove any ambiguity, etc... >> >> On 7 June 2013 13:17, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Eliot, >>> >>> Some comments in-line. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> I note that we still haven't cleaned up the connection model >>>> sufficiently. When someone implements a specification they need to know >>>> at least the port number to connect to. This is the document that has to >>>> specify at least at a bare minimum how that happens. This can be >>>> handled in at least one of four ways: >>>> >>>> 1. We refer to RFC-2616 normatively. This implies that we will not >>>> obsolete 2616 at this time. If we do so later we would need to pull the >>>> HTTP URI definition out and update the IANA definition. >>> >>> Other httpbis documents obsolete 2616, so we should refer to those, rather >>> than 2616. >>> >>>> 2. We pull the HTTP URI definition out and produce a small document for >>>> it separately and refer to that, updating RFC-2616. >>>> >>>> 3. We include the URI definition in the HTTP2 draft. >>> >>> If it needs to be re-iterated, I think having the reiteration within the >>> HTTP2 draft is fine. But simply referring to whatever RFC >>> draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-13 becomes seems simpler. That reinforces >>> the idea that HTTP2 and HTTP share the same URI synatx. >>> >>> >>>> 4. We abstract the connection model entirely from the document. >>>> 5. We specify that unless specified within a URI, the default protocol >>>> is TCP and the default port is 80. >>>> >>>> This all came to light because of interest to do some work with HTTP2 >>>> using something other than TCP. Thus, one might thing that [4] is the >>>> appropriate thing to do, but my experience with BEEP is that it lends >>>> itself to an ugly set of documents and violates the KISS principle. To >>>> that end, I recommend the text in [5] be added for now, and that as >>>> HTTP2 matures we consider [2] later. >>>> >>> So, I think saying that new transports may mint new URI schemes >>> (http.newfangled) is safe enough; they may. But I'm not sure whether that >>> adds much value. What's the harm in simply referring to >>> draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging for the URI syntax and leaving it at that >>> for the moment? >>> >>> regards, >>> >>> Ted >>> >>> >>>> Specifically, OLD: >>>> >>>> The HTTP/2.0 session runs atop TCP ([RFC0793]). The client is the >>>> TCP connection initiator. >>>> >>>> NEW: >>>> >>>> Unless otherwise specified within a URI, an HTTP/2.0 session runs >>>> atop TCP ([RFC0793]) and a client initiates a server on port 80. >>>> >>>> Eliot >>>> > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > >
- port #? Eliot Lear
- Re: port #? Julian Reschke
- Re: port #? Eliot Lear
- Re: port #? Ted Hardie
- Re: port #? Martin Thomson
- Re: port #? Roberto Peon
- Re: port #? Mark Nottingham
- Re: port #? Eliot Lear