Re: http/1 opportunistic encryption

[Amos Jeffries <[e-mail]>]

On 11/07/2015 2:15 a.m., Erik Nygren wrote:
> As also discussed in the thread on passing IP addresses, a common
> implementation pattern seems to be to bolt an HTTP/2 demuxer in front of an
> HTTP/1.x server, sometimes with them communicating such that the HTTP/1.x
> server isn't seeing the HTTP/2 communications internals.  What I was
> wondering is how people implementing this way pass along the URI elements.
> :method, :path, and :authority have clear things to translate into, but
> :scheme does not.  Not handling this properly is likely an implementation
> bug, but I suspect it will be a common bug.

If teh server is compliant with HTTP/1.1 it is expected to accept
absolute-URI not just relative-URI.

My understanding was that :scheme was supposed to be translated into
absolute-URI for the HTTP/1 server when the scheme does not match the
transport protocol used to the server. If it does match then
relative-URI was the right thing to do.

Whether reality matches that spec behaviour though is a good question.

Amos