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: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 10:06:51 +0000
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <3918.1359713211@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
--------
In message <510B8F46.20809@treenet.co.nz>, Amos Jeffries writes:
>On 1/02/2013 8:09 p.m., James M Snell wrote:

>> +------------------------------+
>> |S|len(method)|method|len(host)|
>> +-+-------+----+---------+-----+
>> | host  | len(path) |  path  |
>> +------------------------------+

>This makes several assumptions which are false and will cause a lot of 
>trouble:

I must admit that I'm not terribly happy about the lack of generality
in James' proposal either.

The performance and complexity difference between James proposal
and simply:

	[length][method][length][absolute_uri]

Is vanishingly small, but the latter would be much more general.

I might even be tempted to suggest:

	[length][method SP absolute_uri]

Because the most frequently used methods would take up less space
that way.

We could even decide to encode the HTTP "GET" method simply as "G",
"POST" as "P" etc. while still leaving room in the protocol for
somebody to implement a custom "FOOBAR" method of their own.

-- 
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 Friday, 1 February 2013 10:07:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 February 2013 10:07:20 GMT