W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: Claification requested in Host:

From: Dave Kristol <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 97 14:04:01 EST
Message-Id: <9702141904.AA04265@aleatory>
To: jg@zorch.w3.org
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2367
Dah Ming Chiu[SMTP:dahming.chiu@Eng.Sun.COM] (via jg@zorch.w3.org) wrote:
  > Here is a HTTP 1.1 question for you.  According to the spec 14.23, the
  > Host field is defined as
  > 	"Host" ":" host [ ":" port ]
  > where (in 3.2.2), host is defined as
  > 	<a legal Internet host domain name or IP address...>
  > The question is whether a single component name consititute a "legal"
  > Internet host domain name?  For example, a user types in "foo" at his
  > browser, which runs in domain "xyz.com".  The browser is smart enough
  > to assume the use wants to talk to "foo.xyz.com", and hence gets the
  > correct IP address.  But in the HTTP request, the browser sends
  > 	Host : foo
  > Does this browser conform to HTTP 1.1?
  > If the answer is yes, there may be a problem with HTTP 1.1, since the
  > ambiguous host name is not sufficient for virtual host implementation.
  > I suspect the answer is no, in which case that browser is not conformant.
  > Could make this point clear in your spec?

RFC 2068 also says:
	The Host field value MUST represent the network location of the
	origin server or gateway given by the original URL.

Therefore, my take on this is that, if the URL was
	Host: foo
is correct.  If we're in domain xyz.com, I could live with seeing
	Host: foo.xyz.com
instead.  What would not be acceptable, I think, is if "foo" is
an alias for abc(.xyz.com), and we get
	Host: abc.xyz.com
	Host: abc

That would defeat the whole point of Host, to allow virtual hosts.

Dave Kristol
Received on Friday, 14 February 1997 11:20:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC