Opened 14 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
#159 closed design (fixed)
HTTP(s) URI scheme definitions
Reported by: | mnot@… | Owned by: | fielding@… |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | urgent | Milestone: | 13 |
Component: | p1-messaging | Severity: | Active WG Document |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
The HTTP and HTTPS (if taken on board) URI schemes need to clearly state their restrictions, in particular;
- what an empty host means (error - see #92)
- the status of userinfo (disallowed?)
etc.
Change History (21)
comment:1 Changed 14 years ago by mnot@…
comment:2 Changed 14 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Milestone changed from 07 to 08
comment:3 Changed 14 years ago by fielding@…
comment:4 Changed 14 years ago by fielding@…
- Owner set to fielding@…
- Priority set to urgent
- Status changed from new to assigned
Did first part in [621]. I will add statement about userinfo somewhere.
comment:5 Changed 13 years ago by mnot@…
Discussed at Stockholm WG meeting. Feeling in the room: no empty authority, don't allow userinfo.
comment:6 Changed 13 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Milestone changed from 08 to 09
comment:7 Changed 13 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Milestone changed from 09 to 10
comment:8 Changed 13 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Milestone changed from 10 to 11
comment:9 Changed 13 years ago by fielding@…
comment:10 Changed 13 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:11 Changed 13 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:12 Changed 13 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Milestone changed from 11 to 12
comment:13 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…
I really think we should have registration templates in the IANA Considerations section.
comment:14 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Milestone changed from 12 to 13
comment:15 Changed 12 years ago by fielding@…
comment:16 Changed 12 years ago by fielding@…
I don't see any value in including IANA templates for these two URI schemes that are already defined on the standards-track (templates primarily provide IANA with change control information). Can we close this now?
comment:17 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…
+1 to close. I may want to check later on that we actually *have* all the information that's required by the registration template, but if we don't we can treat that as separate issues.
comment:18 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:19 Changed 12 years ago by fielding@…
- Resolution set to incorporated
- Status changed from assigned to closed
comment:20 Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…
- Resolution incorporated deleted
- Status changed from closed to reopened
comment:21 Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from reopened to closed
As per Roy (in discussing #128):
We are going to define the https scheme in part 1 because the syntax needs to be updated along with the http scheme. RFC 2818 is a dead duck.