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

Re: 10.22 Host

From: Steve Wingard <swingard@spyglass.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 10:19:04 -0500
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960430151904.008d088c@rafiki>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 02:28 PM 4/29/96 EDT, you wrote:
>10.22 says:
>
>		All Internet-based HTTP/1.1 servers MUST respond with a
>      400 status code to any HTTP/1.1 request message which lacks a Host
>      header field.
>
>This conflicts with 5.1.2:
>
>	                                       If the absoluteURI form is
>      used, any Host request-header included with the request MUST be ignored.

I don't see a conflict here.  All 1.1 requests must contain a Host
header.   IF the request also contains an absoluteURI, the host
information contained in it will take precedence over the information
supplied in the Host header.

>I think 5.1.2 has it right, in which case 10.22 should read:
>
>		All Internet-based HTTP/1.1 servers MUST respond with a
>      400 status code to any HTTP/1.1 request message that lacks both an
>      absoluteURI in the request line and a Host header field.
>

Then you've basically said that all HTTP 1.1 clients must generate only
absoluteURIs in HTTP/1.1 requests, which contradicts the language
in 5.1.2 that states

        To allow for transition to absoluteURIs in all requests in future
versions
        of HTTP, HTTP/1.1 servers MUST accept the absoluteURI form in requests,
        even though HTTP/1.1 clients will not normally generate them.   Versions
        of HTTP after HTTP/1.1 may require absoluteURIs everywhere, after
        HTTP/1.1 or later have become the dominant implementations.


--
Steve Wingard					swingard@spyglass.com
Spyglass, Inc.,  1240 E. Diehl Road, Naperville, IL 60563	(708) 245-6581
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 1996 08:24:42 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:53 EDT