* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Ticket #159 (closed design: fixed)

Opened 6 years ago

Last modified 4 years ago

HTTP(s) URI scheme definitions

Reported by: mnot@pobox.com Owned by: fielding@gbiv.com
Priority: urgent Milestone: 13
Component: p1-messaging Severity: Active WG Document
Keywords: Cc:
Origin: http://www.w3.org/mid/bvo5p4t8els0so0l20sptr8mm535fa46jk@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de

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

comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

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.

comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Milestone changed from 07 to 08

comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by fielding@gbiv.com

From [621]:

Define http and https URI schemes: addresses #58, #128, #159 Resolves #157: removed reference to RFC1900 use of IP addresses in URI.

comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by fielding@gbiv.com

  • Owner set to fielding@gbiv.com
  • 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 5 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

Discussed at Stockholm WG meeting. Feeling in the room: no empty authority, don't allow userinfo.

comment:6 Changed 5 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Milestone changed from 08 to 09

comment:7 Changed 5 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Milestone changed from 09 to 10

comment:8 Changed 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Milestone changed from 10 to 11

comment:9 Changed 4 years ago by fielding@gbiv.com

From [877]:

Addresses #159: HTTP(s) URI scheme definitions

Make clear that userinfo is not allowed. Clarify the differences between "http" and "https".

comment:10 Changed 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

From [881]:

Note change in [877] relating to issue 159 (see #159)

comment:11 Changed 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

From [963]:

update status of issue 159 as work in progress (see #159)

comment:12 Changed 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Milestone changed from 11 to 12

comment:13 Changed 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

I really think we should have registration templates in the IANA Considerations section.

comment:14 Changed 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Milestone changed from 12 to 13

comment:15 Changed 4 years ago by fielding@gbiv.com

From [1157]:

Discussion on list suggests that userinfo remains in common use for configuration or command options, so it needs to be defined. However, we can exclude it from being sent in messages.

Addresses #159

comment:16 Changed 4 years ago by fielding@gbiv.com

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 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

+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 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

From [1159]:

note change [1157], see #159

comment:19 Changed 4 years ago by fielding@gbiv.com

  • Status changed from assigned to closed
  • Resolution set to incorporated

comment:20 Changed 4 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Status changed from closed to reopened
  • Resolution incorporated deleted

comment:21 Changed 4 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Status changed from reopened to closed
  • Resolution set to fixed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.