W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1995

Re: Decision about Host?

From: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 23:36:00 +0100 (MET)
To: Beth Frank <efrank@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Cc: http WG <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <182.bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Once again on Beth Franks question:
> I need to give an answer to our browser implementors.
> My understanding of the situation is:
> 
> 1) In HTTP/1.1  HOST will be a required header field for
> 	http: URI's.
> 
> 2) There is not portable way to easily guarantee that a
> 	client (on all platforms) can get a fully qualified
> 	domain name (fqdn) to place in HOST.
> 
> 
> So, is it acceptable for the client to place whatever it
> 	finds between the // and the first / in the HOST
> 	field, with the understanding it may not be a
> 	fqdn?  If we can get a resolution on this soon,
> 	the addition of the HOST header will make the next
> 	Mosaic release.
As I see the discussion, now we can surely assume that putting
a non-fqdn in host makes no harm. (In some cases this can lead to ambiguity,
but allowing non-fqdn in host header field value doesn't forbid any reasonable
efforts to interpolate the fqdn.) There are open some question on error codes,
but that fact should not delay the Mosaic team in implementing the Host
header.
There is the question - on the port number to be included or not - left open.
I think, not including the port number makes no harm (later it can be added if
somebody gives reasonable arguments on its necessity) and will not break
existing implementations. (According to Roy, there are at least two
implementations.) As I see, including the port number may be necessary only
in very pathological cases.

Can we (the WG) agree on this, letting the mosaic team to go forward?

Andrew. (Endre Balint Nagy) <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Received on Friday, 6 October 1995 15:45:55 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:33 EDT