- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:07:23 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Flipping this to editorial; I don't think there's a design aspect to this one (it's just specifying something already present more clearly). On 09/10/2009, at 1:52 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> ... >>>> Note that 'request-URI' is used here; however, we need to come up >>>> with a term to denote "the URI that can be inferred from >>>> examining the request-target and the Host header." >>> >>> I think the term "Request-URI" makes a lot of sense, because it >>> already is in use for that purpose (although in RFC2616 it didn't >>> mean exactly that). >> Makes sense. >>> The definition will need to go into P1, Section 4. Mark, are you >>> going to open a ticket for that one? >> Now <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/196>. >>> >>>> Also, the comparison function is going to have to be defined >>>> somewhere, because we already need to compare URIs for things >>>> like cache invalidation. >>> >>> Any reason why we can't use P1, Section 2.6.3? (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#uri.comparison >>> >) >> Think so, yes. >> ... > > I noticed that Strict Transport Security (STS) (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Sep/att-0051/draft-hodges-strict-transport-sec-05.plain.html > >) calls this "Effective Request URI", which I think makes a lot of > sense. > > BR, Julian > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 15 October 2009 04:07:59 UTC