Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-00.txt

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

In-line below

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 9:50 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 06-Jul-21 03:28, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >
> > First, I think that this work is really important, and I'd like to
> proceed.
> >
> > Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >     > The new draft proposes to update the RFC accordingly. The changes
> >     > are relatively small but significant. There's a diff between the
> >     > RFC and this draft at:
> >     >
> https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/Diff-rfc6874-draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-00.html
> >
> > I read the diff, and I was unable to actually figure out what had
> changed :-(
> >
> >     > Comments welcome. If we want to go ahead with this fix, we will
> need to
> >     > reach out to the URI specialists and the browser community, to be
> sure
> >     > it isn't a waste of time.
> >
> > Does the zoneid go into the Host: header or not?
> > I can't tell at this point.
>
> As I understand the HTTP/1.1 spec, the Host: header is required to include
> the complete URI,


This is not correct.  Please see RFC 7230, Section 5.4.  The full URI would
include scheme and the path, which are not included in the host header.

regards,

Ted


> so RFC6874 was wrong anyway because it did not claim
> to update HTTP :-). So yes, and furthermore at least one deployed
> protocol (CUPS) relies on it.
>
>    Brian
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT
> consulting )
> >            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>