W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1996

Re: About that Host: header....

From: Daniel DuBois <ddubois@rafiki.spyglass.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 09:38:29 -0600
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960320153829.00d52e6c@rafiki>
To: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>, Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>, jg@w3.org, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, ari@netscape.com, paulle@microsoft.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, jeff@step.mcom.com
At 10:11 PM 3/19/96 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>requirement.  Even if we "require" that servers return an error message, it
>just pushes the problem a bit further out.  We will find, I'm afraid
>inevitably, that some idiot will decide to not bother sending "host" in the
>interest of a few extra cycles of efficiency and that other idiots will make
>the server error message a configurable option, also in the interest of
>efficiency.    Extrapolation from the history of the Internet predicts to a
>lot of such idiots.

Those same idiots would enable 200 OK responses to HTTP/1.1 requests that
don't have the full URL in the request line and use the 1.0 partial URL
style, or they'd make the error response a configurable option.  So it's a
moot point.

I think Host: will be just fine.


-----
the Programmer formerly known as Dan          
                                     http://www.spyglass.com/~ddubois/
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 1996 07:48:23 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:49 EDT