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: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 08:12:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7RbePabRSfW1yk-T96WBBCchog7yJaTbh+kPYeC1uND6xgQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
On Feb 1, 2013 4:50 AM, "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>[snip]
>
> > 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.
>
> That would be a good start, yes.
>

Given that we have at least three or four registered methods that start
with the letter P, that doesn't work. And given that methods are extensible
via ad hoc or registration, a numeric identifier is difficult (but not
impossible). I'm not opposed to it, but It would make deploying new
registered methods harder. Method names are short, there are higher
priority optimization targets.

- James

> Willy
>
>
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 16:13:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 February 2013 16:13:17 GMT