Re: port #?

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 07 June 2013 20:19 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 40EB521F99C4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 Nme741rB3VL6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6748F21F99C2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ul36Z-0003YV-2P for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 20:17:47 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 20:17:47 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Ul36Z-0003YV-2P@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ted.ietf@gmail.com>) id 1Ul36H-0003US-Oh for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 20:17:29 +0000
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ted.ietf@gmail.com>) id 1Ul36G-0004MW-FI for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 20:17:29 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 17so11841386iea.31 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Xy+npaBi9E6n5SYAPphj7zT5NfNJwANgG4twPlZR3Jo=; b=jfQNpB5WYt7AI9vp5X0EA796SKCI/sLKIJ6GcRtW5Ud3Rt9iiOxRcoal8GwVPGyz3q 2DSblI864uNbOy0u66ozi9Xeya8DWBIn6/dL/n3n2QaWBACDDe8E6mzSDEtOAmKSjCLF yZ2qg4OIi/+5rtPkq+4UM4jbR2qfi+7+Odo4YLqEemySmMgdJZkSMQ0jP9s09x7aHl18 RYSd6YA2kicL9+PBR+rf5AnlZIUZIix562EJAZCV+Nkg4cWFWQqhNna7KBAO3lKMRYZI KPngxyR3OlJ4f72T+ccTHjU2Cqp3jDDaySfOdIXmfv7sHEmYvZrvthvrn+2kc+JR4y8B cHew==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.17.166 with SMTP id p6mr2007678igd.12.1370636222740; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.177.2 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51B1937B.70808@cisco.com>
References: <51B1937B.70808@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:17:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCvQ-XLQDSBvv9OieMoshm0T6ddVyptB6SMn89fHN-Ldw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="14dae9340cc92c413e04de961d5f"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.223.172; envelope-from=ted.ietf@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f172.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.711, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Ul36G-0004MW-FI 7f701adb8419740c8909654aba300dde
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: port #?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CA+9kkMCvQ-XLQDSBvv9OieMoshm0T6ddVyptB6SMn89fHN-Ldw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18197
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>

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
>
>