Re: p1: HTTP and TCP name delegation

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 22 April 2013 04:11 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 B308B21F87D0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.478
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.121, 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 19f0tHb2v4YW for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E375021F8928 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UU7lI-00035s-ML for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:49:52 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:49:52 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UU7lI-00035s-ML@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UU7lF-00033B-0L for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:49:49 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UU7lE-0006Gt-6G for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:49:48 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B76BC509B5 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:49:26 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <7B626010-D681-4109-BDA5-807BCAE72012@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:49:26 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E1F6FAE6-CDA4-4597-89CC-A8C1051D086D@mnot.net>
References: <7B626010-D681-4109-BDA5-807BCAE72012@mnot.net>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.424, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UU7lE-0006Gt-6G 1d53becab7d4a449277d038617d513c9
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p1: HTTP and TCP name delegation
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/E1F6FAE6-CDA4-4597-89CC-A8C1051D086D@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17453
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>

Now:
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/447


On 20/04/2013, at 2:07 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> p1 2.7.1 says:
> 
>> Although HTTP is independent of the transport protocol, the "http" scheme is specific to TCP-based services because the name delegation process depends on TCP for establishing authority. An HTTP service based on some other underlying connection protocol would presumably be identified using a different URI scheme, just as the "https" scheme (below) is used for resources that require an end-to-end secured connection. Other protocols might also be used to provide access to "http" identified resources — it is only the authoritative interface used for mapping the namespace that is specific to TCP.
> 
> I made a previous editorial comment that this should be clarified as follows:
> 
> "...because the name delegation process depends on the TCP port for establishing authority."   (note "port")
> 
> However, that wasn't integrated. Is that incorrect, or was there another reason?
> 
> Also, no such statement is made in the definition of the HTTPS URI scheme (2.7.2); it should be.
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/