W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Possible erratum in Part 1, section 9.4.

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:22:04 +0200
To: Adrian Custer <ac@pocz.org>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <5en307peneqbl75pv4r3ido9b692je437u@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Adrian Custer wrote:
>In HTTPbis, Part 1, Section 9.4, the fourth(ish) paragraph states:
>
>The Host header field MUST be sent in an HTTP/1.1 request even if the
>    request-target is in the form of an absolute-URI, since this allows
>    the Host information to be forwarded through ancient HTTP/1.0 proxies
>    that might not have implemented Host.
>
>but I do not understand this ending "implemented Host".

If the client does not send the "Host" header, and you have an ancient
HTTP/1.0 proxy that does not generate the "Host" header on its own, then
the request will not have a "Host" header when it reaches the server. As
the server might depend on the presence of the Host header to serve the
request, it's better to send the "Host" header even if the information
in the header is, strictly speaking, redundant in the specific case. If
that clarifies the intended meaning, how would you phrase that?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 12:22:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:41 GMT