W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: NEW ISSUE: empty Host header

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:23:34 +0100
Message-ID: <474558A6.1030305@gmx.de>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Host is full of baggage imposed by folks who never implemented
> HTTP and had no way of knowing that mandating Host on all messages
> was a complete waste of time (it had already been implemented on
> all browsers).
> We don't need to change the mandate, but we can improve the
> description so that it explains all of the types of possible
> HTTP requests and note the fact that not all URIs have a host
> portion.  The empty Host is for that reason.  I thought that
> this was already on the issues list, but I guess not.
> Note that host in RFC3986 is already defined to allow empty
> (because reg-name can be empty).


So... assuming we replaced RFC2396's host with RCF3986's host, the 
following would become legal:

   Host: :81

Bug or feature?

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2007 10:50:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:43 UTC