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 22:55:17 +0000
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Message-ID: <18235.1359586517@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
In message <CAP+FsNfGocr9S992SQNWfW+K9Rz5f1XZcVkC7AoV5WXmxF+Pcw@mail.gmail.com>, Roberto Peon writes:

>Dropping the host header will inflate the size of bytes on the wire, to the
>detriment of latency.

Really ?

I thought we hadn't decided how things would be encoded yet, so how can
you tell ?

As far as I can see, if we did this to HTTP/1 with no other changes we would;

	Add  "http://" ${fqdn}

	Remove  "Host: " ${fqdn} CR NL

Which looks like a one byte saving to me ?

>I haven't yet heard of a real performance advantage for dropping it. Is
>there one?

High-performance implementations would not have to text-process the entire
header to find the fqdn they use for routing decisions.

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 22:55:39 UTC

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