Re: port #?
Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Fri, 07 June 2013 20:34 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 11F0C21F98AD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 TVGZfqYFEeqz for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9AC721F9957 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ul3MQ-0002es-NJ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 20:34:10 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 20:34:10 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Ul3MQ-0002es-NJ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1Ul3MD-0002e8-Sp for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 20:33:57 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1Ul3MD-0004H1-2n for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 20:33:57 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id xk17so7117102obc.24 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:33:31 -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=FGwtyzlKfUQjfjJf/eY+LCEULUFL0AVUpkrqs0oB9D8=; b=a4xD74xxCGzzi2MMRGcXF5LxZTYZ2kiYBE2QdRvqcJcEznTUVwKk/pfUrkKmQtcnnD NNDSMKwpJb53YSApstRQ7mOvNIQmyORFiddrNpNJTfChGUWuSne4gsUX+pfeaWqBZQRf 6tRVmZ/CobxKkdFkeilvsKOCq6PPU9WnQFw/6ORO3DJUzocjxpDlfTAGd2UoQOrFayVP vD5VGIpreCbvgAzpHTbvjbhiF9rbV0ZIqLtUUBefLyWROwMpG2fgq0rSX5E97JIWPXHd erDf1FQ3EyNMewwK8V9tL+vizbtWG5C+/974wPMnQRnIgpFFP+2hkTM9EiHkxSSD5jAC devg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.155.177 with SMTP id vx17mr338920oeb.9.1370637211163; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.71.10 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXSZ9B3SjMHJCQFjAf6uGL3f-7Nkt6-ZuAMwSr+7orjaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51B1937B.70808@cisco.com> <CA+9kkMCvQ-XLQDSBvv9OieMoshm0T6ddVyptB6SMn89fHN-Ldw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXSZ9B3SjMHJCQFjAf6uGL3f-7Nkt6-ZuAMwSr+7orjaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:33:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNf31pjwqppX0QXMmf1fVe0BYvsORCy51MoQHoBygVBUBw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e010d81241669a304de965830"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.179; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f179.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.689, 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: lisa.w3.org 1Ul3MD-0004H1-2n cbe2f285fba5f7bd1ad5b8e2b193d597
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: port #?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNf31pjwqppX0QXMmf1fVe0BYvsORCy51MoQHoBygVBUBw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18199
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>
Or we could say that URIs which map to the use of HTTP/1.1 would map to the use of HTTP/2.0 without change and not mention any parts of it specifically. -=R On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote: > Everything that Ted says, plus I think that the suggested text isn't > quite the right place. We talk about using the same "http:" and > "https:" schemes in Section 2. It would be relatively easy to add > "...and ports" to the following statement: > > OLD: > HTTP/2.0 uses the same "http:" and "https:" URI schemes used by > HTTP/1.1. > ADD: > HTTP/2.0 also shares the same default port numbers: 80 for "http:" > URIs and 443 for "https:" URIs. > > That would address option 5, remove any ambiguity, etc... > > On 7 June 2013 13:17, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > >> > > > >
- port #? Eliot Lear
- Re: port #? Julian Reschke
- Re: port #? Eliot Lear
- Re: port #? Ted Hardie
- Re: port #? Martin Thomson
- Re: port #? Roberto Peon
- Re: port #? Mark Nottingham
- Re: port #? Eliot Lear