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

RE: About that Host: header....

From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 14:02:12 -0800
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-77-MSG-960319220212Z-2039@red-05-imc.itg.microsoft.com>
To: "'bearheart@bearnet.com'" <bearheart@bearnet.com>, 'Ari Luotonen' <luotonen@netscape.com>
Cc: "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>----------
>From: 	Ari Luotonen[SMTP:luotonen@netscape.com]
>Sent: 	Monday, March 18, 1996 10:39 PM

>In any case -- whether the host is in the URL or the Host: header is a
>mere matter of taste.  One of them breaks things, the other doesn't --
>so which one do we pick?

>An observation: Another way to "clean up" the protocol is to move the
>host part of the Request-URI in requests to proxies to the Host:
>header. 1.1 proxies would have to accept them in both the Request-URI
>and the Host: and send a warning to 1.1 clients that put them in the
>Request-URI;  1.2 proxies (2.0?) could require that they be in the
>Host: header.
>
>I personally prefer option #2 if I were designing the protocol from
>scratch, but think that we may have to compromise here. I also agree
>with John Klensin's observations 100%, but the each such cleanup takes
>a "silver bullet" and I'd rather save mine for a case where the
>workarounds are much more complicated and error prone than Host:.
>(I.e., his general principal is correct, but this case may not be the
>best application of it...)
>
>Paul
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 1996 13:31:25 EST

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