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

"Roy T. Fielding" <notifications@github.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 13:27 UTC

Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 05:27:49 -0800
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3CNLBS3QP7JGNJAKN4I2R5LEVBNHHCCW3TFU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3408/581909000@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3408@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3408@github.com>
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_5e397155bee63_5ac93f821cecd960466dd"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/raQmQ0MyF3e2w7zH6OPBYS9Jxko>

Well, assuming we still allow requests for URIs that do not have an authority component (e.g, a URN or similar), I think it is better to just leave it alone. OTOH, folks are still going to ask what needs to be sent when the request target doesn't have an authority component, so that ought to be defined somewhere here more sensibly than it was for 1.1.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3408#issuecomment-581909000

[quicwg/base-drafts] Is absence of both :authorit… Mike Bishop
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Is absence of both :auth… Kazuho Oku
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Is absence of both :auth… Roy T. Fielding
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Is absence of both :auth… Mike Bishop
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Is absence of both :auth… Roy T. Fielding
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Is absence of both :auth… Lars Eggert
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Is absence of both :auth… Mike Bishop