Re: port #?

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 10 June 2013 01:42 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 9313621F8CB4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 18:42:15 -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 odAJpBDJJp7J for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 18:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BA5621F8C1A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 18:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ulr6N-0007wV-Ok for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:40:55 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:40:55 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Ulr6N-0007wV-Ok@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Ulr6B-0007vW-00 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:40:43 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Ulr69-0000TI-KO for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:40:42 +0000
Received: from 131-113-150-228.event.mita.keio.ac.jp (unknown [131.113.150.228]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D87122E1F3; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 21:40:19 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXSZ9B3SjMHJCQFjAf6uGL3f-7Nkt6-ZuAMwSr+7orjaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:40:16 +0900
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EC16AB59-8F1C-4704-A7C0-A098DD735977@mnot.net>
References: <51B1937B.70808@cisco.com> <CA+9kkMCvQ-XLQDSBvv9OieMoshm0T6ddVyptB6SMn89fHN-Ldw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXSZ9B3SjMHJCQFjAf6uGL3f-7Nkt6-ZuAMwSr+7orjaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Ulr69-0000TI-KO 814e310e6da20abfc08028f296abf190
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: port #?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/EC16AB59-8F1C-4704-A7C0-A098DD735977@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18208
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>

Fine by me, as long as people don't (yet) read this as precluding using another port if we have external, non-URI information (e.g, a DNS record).

Cheers,


On 08/06/2013, at 5:30 AM, 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
>>> 
>> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/