Re: Spec v Practice, URI wildcard

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Tue, 15 September 2020 02:11 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A83F3A0EA7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 19:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.672
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.672 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3v6VrRUank-7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 19:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (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 A9CF03A0EA9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 19:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kI0PH-0007kK-D7 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 02:09:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 02:09:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kI0PH-0007kK-D7@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1kI0PE-0007dU-6N for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 02:09:16 +0000
Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60] helo=1wt.eu) by titan.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1kI0PC-0000iy-3w for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 02:09:16 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 08F2909Z012796; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 04:09:00 +0200
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 04:09:00 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Eric J Bowman <mellowmutt@zoho.com>
Cc: Ietf Http Wg <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20200915020900.GB12684@1wt.eu>
References: <1748f131d1b.108737f8046461.6597708246829769726@zoho.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1748f131d1b.108737f8046461.6597708246829769726@zoho.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1kI0PC-0000iy-3w 3c70e33551d69790db3bf6644ddcf253
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Spec v Practice, URI wildcard
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20200915020900.GB12684@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38047
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>

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 05:03:48PM -0700, Eric J Bowman wrote:
> How many webservers implement the URI wildcard, i.e.
> 
> http://example.com/*
> 
> I've only ever implemented for OPTIONS requests. Is this obsolete, are there
> successful use-cases, or do folks just not bother with this?

Unless I'm mistaken, I think the URI wildcard is in fact "http://example.com"
(with no trailing slash) which is turned to "*" when sent as a path component
with the OPTIONS method.

At least H2 agents are required to use "*" in the path for empty paths
components (RFC7540#8.1.2.3) so it's likely that most H2 agents implement
it.

FWIW I've seen it work fine for upgrades at least.

Willy