Subject: Re: [httpwg/http-extensions] Try to explain and justify the use of the absolute form in HTTP/1.1 (#257)

From: HTTP issue updates <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 20:55:19 -0700

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

> @@ -102,8 +102,14 @@ The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "S
 
 An origin server that supports the resolution of `http` URIs can indicate support for this
 specification by providing an alternative service advertisement {{RFC7838}} for a protocol
-identifier that uses TLS, such as `h2` {{RFC7540}}, or `http/1.1` {{?RFC7301}}.  Note that HTTP/1.1
-requests MUST use the absolute form (see Section 5.3.2 of {{RFC7230}}).
+identifier that uses TLS, such as `h2` {{RFC7540}}, or `http/1.1` {{?RFC7301}}.
+
+Requests for `http` resources using TLS MUST include the scheme in the request.  HTTP/2 requires
+this and provides the `:scheme` pseudo-header field for this purpose.  HTTP/1.1 provides no such
+field, and even prohibits the use of the absolute form for requests that are sent directly to an
+origin server (see Section 5.3.1 of {{RFC7230}}).  This document overrides that requirement for
+requests with the `http` scheme that are sent over TLS; these requests MUST be made using the
+absolute form as though the server were a proxy.

OK, I tried :)  So what is our rationale for excluding h1?  That it doesn't carry an explicit scheme?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/257

---

From: HTTP issue updates <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 21:12:45 -0700

Closed #257.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/257#event-845909877