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

Re: Possible erratum in Part 1, section 9.4.

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:27:10 +0200
Message-ID: <4E01DF9E.9050503@gmx.de>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: Adrian Custer <ac@pocz.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2011-06-22 14:22, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * 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?

Makes sense.

I think, minimally, the sentence should end with

   "...that might not have implemented the Host header field."

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 12:27:46 GMT

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