- 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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
--------
In message <CAP+FsNfwh54JuudVgYPoendwFRvYDoWpXH64GA5iCG_8=KJQrQ@mail.gmail.com>, Roberto Peon write
s:
>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
ignored.
--
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