Subject: [Bug 211] Inconsistencies about Destination header

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:14:48 -0800

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211

[email-masked] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

------- Additional Comments From [email-masked]  2006-01-06 14:14 -------
This is a case where I believe the WG changed consensus.  Early on in pre-06
drafts of RFC2518bis, we discussed allowing clients to provide an absolute path
in Destination header, rather than an absolute URI.  This was thought to be
necessary for some clients that didn't have host information available or might
have incorrect host information.

Later the WG took a broader look at various places in the protocol that could
take URIs, and decided to become stricter rather than more lenient.  I believe
this implied reverting the earlier decision to allow paths instead of just
complete URIs in Destination, but it's good to point this out to confirm.

I've tried to make the next draft conform to the most recent decision more
consistently.

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.