Re: is the "https" patch necessary

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 12:15:06PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Peter Conrad <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > GET https://www.example.org/some/path/file.html HTTP/1.0
> >
> > The former will work with the unpatched publicfile, the latter won't.
> 
> Looks like a proxy request, and publicfile is not supposed to be an
> HTTP/HTTPS proxy, is it?

See RFC 2616 Section 5.1.2:

   The Request-URI is a Uniform Resource Identifier (section 3.2) and
   identifies the resource upon which to apply the request.

       Request-URI    = "*" | absoluteURI | abs_path | authority

[...]

   The absoluteURI form is REQUIRED when the request is being made to a
   proxy. 

It doesn't say that a request to a "normal" (non-proxy) server MUST NOT
contain an absolute URI. Therefore the absolute form is a valid HTTP request.

Bye,
	Peter
-- 
Peter Conrad                        Tel: +49 6102 / 80 99 072
[ t]ivano Software GmbH             Fax: +49 6102 / 80 99 071
Bahnhofstr. 18
63263 Neu-Isenburg