IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: port #?

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 07 June 2013 08:38 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 EFB5F21F9402 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 01:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 OaZz7OqeahrZ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 01:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7082721F938E for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 01:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UksAY-00073B-Rh for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:37:10 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:37:10 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UksAY-00073B-Rh@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UksAL-00061j-35 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:36:57 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UksAK-0001L7-2o for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:36:57 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.29]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0M6yIl-1UPcFc3gkX-00wnoq for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:36:29 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 Jun 2013 08:36:29 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.105]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp029) with SMTP; 07 Jun 2013 10:36:29 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+rByohkK6rSz6ByB73KoI9xQoB84jA11qsYkz2mr dlXbajsPsL686c
Message-ID: <51B19B8A.2000800@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:36:26 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <51B1937B.70808@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <51B1937B.70808@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.18; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.450, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UksAK-0001L7-2o 235bda014b17b4c3241de4b43bf86e42
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: port #?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51B19B8A.2000800@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18194
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>

On 2013-06-07 10:02, Eliot Lear 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.

Hm, no. draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging is what's relevant (and should 
stay relevant).

> ...


Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email