W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Do we kill the "Host:" header in HTTP/2 ?

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:31:41 +0000
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7725.1359538301@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
In message <CAP+FsNf73hw8YDgiLoPCv-CgSGXuKv-7pG9Hqc5H7NGYS7Zr3A@mail.gmail.com>, Roberto Peon write

>I'm saying that we're not currently talking about killing the host header.
>Are you suggesting that it should be killed?

My inclination is that it should, and the text in RFC2616 seems to hint
that others have tagged its existence as a mistake already long time ago.

I also don't spot any obvious down sides if we remove it.

Given that the conversion rules for {abs} <--> {rel+Host} has already
been laid down firmly many years ago, it will not raise any isses
for HTTP/1 <--> HTTP/2 conversion.

It unifies an aspect of the "proxy-version" and the "server-version"
of the protocol, that can't but help make clients code simpler.

And it would make HTTP/2 a speed improvement over HTTP/1 since all the
"routing" information load-balancers need, will be collected in
one place and up front.

And, not the least:  It is certainly easier to explain clearly.

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 09:32:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:09 UTC