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: Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:49:57 +0200
Message-ID: <51096B55.7060207@ngtech.co.il>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 1/30/2013 11:34 AM, Roland Zink wrote:
> 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.
>>
> +1
>
+1 for all the above.

-- 
Eliezer Croitoru
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:50:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:50:44 GMT