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

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

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B6A120123 for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 05:27:51 -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 GLYkUfFg5Aw3 for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 05:27:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7791F12011F for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 05:27:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 110B812130D for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 05:27:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1580822870; bh=Hs3b1CiKLB/U7dDfUxUMY77CTySKJN1DNzBecOrKkLs=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=qAMs2Ryq0MPpUSu0KoqocApDmaPBuvTYyYmah4SiV1o3davZwY03Kqi5hB8kYp9mU cAD+Ao6pkAsaLC2YqA/9t7cpocR+lmAQjhR4vumwRSwe6TtV3QpUAm2GeQXkpEoT8Q +alkEbWGB7BIiK4MXNsW/JAOAl69HtpMqx8fQ0TM=
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 05:27:49 -0800
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <>
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_5e397155bee63_5ac93f821cecd960466dd"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: royfielding
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 13:27:52 -0000

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: