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

Mike Bishop <> Tue, 04 February 2020 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6007120098 for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 04:58:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 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_20=1.546, 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 8gAOWiMfrwrW for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 04:58:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4564412004E for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 04:58:26 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 04:58:25 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1580821105; bh=wV4QUkKK4l8SdFbc9WPq3joXMuiaeBlzNvQ7ug5C3XQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=vM4tlPRwSPCSLuU6GAhqNGT/GDhEI1Ldnet1sNv2dX9L8K3MlsvLBCwwb3R9o4C8D UGHe3/ZXfKzGo3uG/dmJ2xQ/qGeR5t00CyN+g8SG8lq2nBItyaA6g/3QCUsaTelbtZ U5kmRHr6XMdkoB/0qi/oO/YVG7P+iyQFD8u87Gv4=
From: Mike Bishop <>
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_5e396a7162602_8953fe229ccd968375991"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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 12:58:28 -0000

":authority" exists for the purpose of always transporting the equivalent of the `absolute-form`, with ":scheme" and ":path" transporting the rest.  It's mostly a consistency thing, I think.  If you have a "Host" header instead, that's acceptable, too.

So should we say that the target authority MUST be present in either "Host" or ":authority", or do we leave it alone?

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