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: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 09:34:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CALcoZiqKEQBn0W+j8-4R9btHcwyRo0NkYQuBuU06uTLzT5AxZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:43 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2013 1:50 AM, "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
>> This makes several assumptions which are false and will cause a lot of
>> trouble:
>>  1) scheme of URI is always http(s)://.
>
> Yes, it does make this assumption. It seems, rather safe to me. What other
> schemes do we need to support?

All of them, potentially. Anomalies aside (thanks, DAV :), HTTP
methods are uniform so apply to all resources independent of the
scheme used by any particular identifying URI.

"ftp" is the only one I've seen used in practice though, as others
have pointed out.

$ nc ftp.debian.org 80
GET ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/README HTTP/1.0

Mark.
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2013 14:35:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 2 February 2013 14:35:25 GMT