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 09:40:01 +0000
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7770.1359538801@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
In message <CAP+FsNfwh54JuudVgYPoendwFRvYDoWpXH64GA5iCG_8=KJQrQ@mail.gmail.com>, Roberto Peon write

>The biggest downside is that we'll have to mention the host in an
>effectively non-compressible field on every request.

Why would the URI be more or less non-compressible than the Host: header ?

As I see it, we save a header field, and any compression or optimization based
on prefix matching will have an easier time with one field than with two
fields ?

And if you mean that the URI should not be compressed for performance reason,
in HTTP-routers, I would argue that the same holds, possibly even more so,
for the Host: header...

>Also, on a number of requests, the host: header differs from the host which
>is contained in the URL [...]

That would be in direct contravention of the standard:

   [2616, 5.2]:

   1. If Request-URI is an absoluteURI, the host is part of the
      Request-URI. Any Host header field value in the request MUST be

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 09:40:24 UTC

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