Ignore:
Timestamp:
06/09/10 15:49:57 (10 years ago)
Author:
julian.reschke@…
Message:

State that the effective request URI is undefined if you don't know the host (see #221)

Location:
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest
Files:
2 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed

  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p1-messaging.html

    r991 r992  
    14221422      </p>
    14231423      <p id="rfc.section.4.3.p.2">If the request-target is an absolute-URI, then the effective request URI is the request-target.</p>
    1424       <p id="rfc.section.4.3.p.3">If the request-target uses the path-absolute form or the asterisk form, then the effective request URI is constructed by concatenating</p>
     1424      <p id="rfc.section.4.3.p.3">If the request-target uses the path-absolute form or the asterisk form, and the Host header field is present, then the effective
     1425         request URI is constructed by concatenating
     1426      </p>
    14251427      <p id="rfc.section.4.3.p.4"> </p>
    14261428      <ul>
    … …  
    14291431         </li>
    14301432         <li>the character sequence "://",</li>
    1431          <li>the authority component, as specified in the Host header field (<a href="#header.host" id="rfc.xref.header.host.1" title="Host">Section&nbsp;9.4</a>) and determined by the rules in <a href="#the.resource.identified.by.a.request" title="The Resource Identified by a Request">Section&nbsp;4.2</a>, <span class="comment" id="effrequri-nohost">[<a href="#effrequri-nohost" class="smpl">effrequri-nohost</a>: Do we need to include the handling of missing hosts in HTTP/1.0 messages, as described in <a href="#the.resource.identified.by.a.request" title="The Resource Identified by a Request">Section&nbsp;4.2</a>? -- See &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/221">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/221</a>&gt; --jre]</span> and
     1433         <li>the authority component, as specified in the Host header field (<a href="#header.host" id="rfc.xref.header.host.1" title="Host">Section&nbsp;9.4</a>), and
    14321434         </li>
    14331435         <li>the request-target obtained from the Request-Line, unless the request-target is just the asterisk "*".</li>
    14341436      </ul>
    1435       <p id="rfc.section.4.3.p.5">Otherwise, when request-target uses the authority form, the effective request URI is undefined.</p>
     1437      <p id="rfc.section.4.3.p.5">If the request-target uses the path-absolute form or the asterisk form, and the Host header field is not present, then the
     1438         effective request URI is undefined.
     1439      </p>
     1440      <p id="rfc.section.4.3.p.6">Otherwise, when request-target uses the authority form, the effective request URI is undefined.</p>
    14361441      <div id="rfc.figure.u.40"></div>
    14371442      <p>Example 1: the effective request URI for the message</p>  <pre class="text">GET /pub/WWW/TheProject.html HTTP/1.1
    … …  
    14461451         thus "https://www.example.org".
    14471452      </p>
    1448       <p id="rfc.section.4.3.p.8">Effective request URIs are compared using the rules described in <a href="#uri.comparison" title="http and https URI Normalization and Comparison">Section&nbsp;2.6.3</a>, except that empty path components <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be treated as equivalent to an absolute path of "/".
     1453      <p id="rfc.section.4.3.p.9">Effective request URIs are compared using the rules described in <a href="#uri.comparison" title="http and https URI Normalization and Comparison">Section&nbsp;2.6.3</a>, except that empty path components <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be treated as equivalent to an absolute path of "/".
    14491454      </p>
    14501455      <h1 id="rfc.section.5"><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a>&nbsp;<a id="response" href="#response">Response</a></h1>
    … …  
    34493454      </ul>
    34503455      <h2 id="rfc.section.D.13"><a href="#rfc.section.D.13">D.13</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.since.11" href="#changes.since.11">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-11</a></h2>
    3451       <p id="rfc.section.D.13.p.1">None yet.</p>
     3456      <p id="rfc.section.D.13.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
     3457      <ul>
     3458         <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/221">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/221</a>&gt;: "effective request URI: handling of missing host in HTTP/1.0"
     3459         </li>
     3460      </ul>
    34523461      <h1 id="rfc.index"><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></h1>
    34533462      <p class="noprint"><a href="#rfc.index.A">A</a> <a href="#rfc.index.B">B</a> <a href="#rfc.index.C">C</a> <a href="#rfc.index.D">D</a> <a href="#rfc.index.E">E</a> <a href="#rfc.index.G">G</a> <a href="#rfc.index.H">H</a> <a href="#rfc.index.I">I</a> <a href="#rfc.index.K">K</a> <a href="#rfc.index.M">M</a> <a href="#rfc.index.N">N</a> <a href="#rfc.index.O">O</a> <a href="#rfc.index.P">P</a> <a href="#rfc.index.R">R</a> <a href="#rfc.index.S">S</a> <a href="#rfc.index.T">T</a> <a href="#rfc.index.U">U</a> <a href="#rfc.index.V">V</a>

  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p1-messaging.xml

    r991 r992  
    16801680<t>
    16811681   If the request-target uses the path-absolute form or the asterisk form,
    1682    then the effective request URI is constructed by concatenating
     1682   and the Host header field is present, then the effective request URI is
     1683   constructed by concatenating
    16831684</t>
    16841685<t>
    … …  
    16941695    <t>
    16951696      the authority component, as specified in the Host header field
    1696       (<xref target="header.host"/>) and determined by the rules in
    1697       <xref target="the.resource.identified.by.a.request"/>,
    1698       <cref anchor="effrequri-nohost" source="jre">Do we need to include the handling of missing hosts in HTTP/1.0 messages, as
    1699       described in <xref target="the.resource.identified.by.a.request"/>? -- See <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/221"/></cref>
    1700       and
     1697      (<xref target="header.host"/>), and
    17011698    </t>
    17021699    <t>
    … …  
    17051702    </t>
    17061703  </list>
     1704</t>
     1705<t>
     1706   If the request-target uses the path-absolute form or the asterisk form,
     1707   and the Host header field is not present, then the effective request URI is
     1708   undefined.
    17071709</t>
    17081710<t>
    … …  
    56575659<section title="Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-11" anchor="changes.since.11">
    56585660<t>
    5659   None yet.
     5661  Closed issues:
     5662  <list style="symbols">
     5663    <t>
     5664      <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/221"/>:
     5665      "effective request URI: handling of missing host in HTTP/1.0"
     5666    </t>
     5667  </list>
    56605668</t>
    56615669</section>
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.