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

Re: Rev81: COMMENT: 5.2 The Resource Identified by a Request

From: Ben Laurie <ben@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 18:36:33 +0100 (BST)
To: Daniel DuBois <dan@spyglass.com>
Cc: sjk@amazon.com, jg@w3.org, dmk@allegra.att.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9606031836.aa10359@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
Daniel DuBois wrote:
> 
> At 10:54 AM 6/3/96 -0700, Shel Kaphan wrote:
> > > o	Host request-headers are required in HTTP/1.1 requests.
> >Sorry if I'm being dense here or repeating past arguments, but...
> >
> >If a client has determined that a given server speaks HTTP 1.1, should
> >it really be considered illegal to omit the HOST header if an absolute
> >URI is included in the request?
> 
> I'll quote myself:
> 
> ********
> At 04:33 PM 4/24/96 EDT, Dave Kristol wrote:
> >Words to that effect appear in Sect. 8 and App.D.1.  They should say,
> >instead, that either an absoluteURI or Host request-header must
> >accompany all HTTP/1.1 requests.
> 
> For now it's probably safer to require that Host: appear on ALL 1.1
> requests, regardless of whether or not the Request-URI includes the Host
> information.  there's more assurance this way that some people won't screw
> it up.
> 
> More importantly: consider what happens if ClientFoo does not send the
> Host:, instead deciding to send absoluteURI, and ClientFoo is talking to a
> proxy.  If that proxy is old, it will strip the host info out of the
> Reqest-URI and pass it on.  Now our 1.1 origin server gets no Host: and no
> absoluteURI.  Sure - we could make special case language saying "You have to
> send Host:, unless you are talking to a 1.1 server you dont have to, but you
> do have to if your talking to a proxy."  What was it JG was saying?:
> "Protocols can only stand so many special purpose hacks."
> 
> As such, I think we have good reason, and rough consensus, for Host: header
> to be mandatory on all 1.1 requests.  Which is why the issue was closed, and
> the language exists in the spec.

If the Host: header is mandatory even in the presence of an absoluteURI (and
the argument that 1.0 proxies will strip the absoluteURI is a good one) then
it ought to be an error to send a Host: which disagrees with the absoluteURI.

Cheers,

Ben.

> ********
> 
> -----
> Daniel DuBois, Software Animal          
>                                      dan@spyglass.com
>                                      http://www.spyglass.com/~ddubois/
> 

-- 
Ben Laurie                  Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435
Freelance Consultant and    Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
Technical Director          Email: ben@algroup.co.uk
A.L. Digital Ltd,           URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk
London, England.
Received on Monday, 3 June 1996 11:24:39 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:01 EDT