RFC7616 uri= vs request-target etc

Joe Orton <joe@manyfish.co.uk> Thu, 11 June 2020 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADA343A00C9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M67h0_bmX8Ry for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 998033A00C3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jjSdn-0006BG-Lc for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 19:13:31 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 19:13:31 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jjSdn-0006BG-Lc@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <joe@manyfish.co.uk>) id 1jjSdm-0006AQ-6u for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 19:13:30 +0000
Received: from draba.manyfish.co.uk ([]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <joe@manyfish.co.uk>) id 1jjSdk-0003ti-Gc for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 19:13:30 +0000
Received: from ricotia.manyfish.co.uk ([] helo=manyfish.co.uk) by draba.manyfish.co.uk with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <joe@manyfish.co.uk>) id 1jjSdX-000lB4-AO for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 20:13:15 +0100
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 20:13:14 +0100
From: Joe Orton <joe@manyfish.co.uk>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20200611191314.GA262447@manyfish.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=; envelope-from=joe@manyfish.co.uk; helo=draba.manyfish.co.uk
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1jjSdk-0003ti-Gc 22ba253c24a1738f8b7e6215091fdef3
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RFC7616 uri= vs request-target etc
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20200611191314.GA262447@manyfish.co.uk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37754
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Apologies if this has already been discussed, I don't see anything in 
errata and the text is very confused.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7616#section-3.4 says that the uri= 
parameter sent by the client should be the "effective request URI" as 
defined by 7230 and explicitly not the request-target:


      The Effective Request URI (Section 5.5 of [RFC7230]) of the HTTP
      request; duplicated here because proxies are allowed to change the
      request target ("request-target", Section 3.1.1 of [RFC7230]) in

3.4.3 then says the A2 construction uses request-uri, a term which is 
never explicitly defined (except in RFC2616, which is not referenced):

         A2       = Method ":" request-uri

... unless you assume that request-uri means "effective request URI", 
which is non-obvious.

3.4.6 then defines "request-target" as if *that* was used in e.g. A2 
construction, which it wasn't.

All the examples then use absolute-path in uri=, which is not an 
"effective request URI" (right?), further muddying the waters.

If request-target is supposed to be used in uri=, that makes sense to 
me; strike all mention of "effective URI" and "request-uri", use 
"request-target" everywhere and define that uri= takes the 
request-target.  (This is then basically the same as 2617 as well)

How have current 7616 implementations dealt with this?  Stick with 
2617-style request-target everywhere?

Regards, Jos