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: Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:34:50 +0100
Message-ID: <5108E93A.5080605@zinks.de>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 30.01.2013 10:31, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> --------
> In message <CAP+FsNf73hw8YDgiLoPCv-CgSGXuKv-7pG9Hqc5H7NGYS7Zr3A@mail.gmail.com>, Roberto Peon write
> s:
>> 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.
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 09:35:13 UTC

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