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: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:48:51 +0100
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20130130214851.GA16834@1wt.eu>
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:03:06PM +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 30/01/2013 10:34 p.m., 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
> >
> 
> Indeed. +1 on all the above.

+1 for me too. Looking up the header and concatenating it with the URI
to permit string matching is quite inefficient and we already have to
do it due to end-user demand.

Willy
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 21:52:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 21:52:32 GMT