Re: RFC 9113 and :authority header field

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

Ah I see, the detail I missed was that in HTTP/1.1 the Host header is not
part of control data when using relative URLs. Thanks for clarifying.
David

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:52 PM Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022, at 05:42, David Schinazi wrote:
> > <<An intermediary that forwards a request over HTTP/2 MUST construct an
> > ":authority" pseudo-header field using the authority information from
> > the control data of the original request, unless the original request's
> > target URI does not contain authority information (in which case it MUST
> NOT generate ":authority").>>
>
> Note the restoration of the final missing parenthetical.
>
> > Am I misunderstanding something?
>
> The distinction here is between requests that a client creates for itself
> and requests that it is forwarding.
>
> The interpretation from Stefan is right: if you forward a request that
> only has Host and not :authority (perhaps because it came in HTTP/1.1) then
> you include "host" and not ":authority" in HTTP/2.
>
> Consider also that not every HTTP/2 client conforms to RFC 9113; there are
> a number that conform to the language in RFC 7540.
>
> (If your next point is that this could be clearer in the spec, I'm not
> going to disagree with you.)
>
>