Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Is absence of both :authority and Host an error? (#3408)

Kazuho Oku <> Tue, 04 February 2020 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED241200DB for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 03:09:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JKJgjEa8OuRV for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 03:09:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDD6F12013A for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 03:09:05 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 03:09:04 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1580814544; bh=PPoh6qT59gr1oN+3dlN5Lmuu8lbQuPq6vdxeFOvSat4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=SPSHn93gyPPtwcsPX/W4kY96hXu0++yGx11mB1f+ukF3Z+/w8Dx40VlUFShtzd94x 2yvvgKWLUtyuf8cDiSd2eqgFBKIEq5z6lET9auU18j6z9cMzTQJRih1JKosMIj44Wv 8Ri7zA/evDhLNalZGC8qLxU7CgTDlE9YI1M3w/og=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3408/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Is absence of both :authority and Host an error? (#3408)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e3950d0a5832_2e143fcb98ecd96810843a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 11:09:07 -0000

@MikeBishop Thank you for looking into the problem.

Regarding if (or how) we should handle the issue, I think my weak preference goes to having one rule for both HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. That would be less surprising to the users, and would also be helpful to implementations. It could well be the case for an HTTP server to have a common logic of handing pseudo headers (or lack of) between HTTP/2 and HTTP/3.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: