W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

RE: question about :authority header field

From: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:57:28 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6C71876BDCCD01488E70A2399529D5E52F510F88@ADELE.crf.canon.fr>
This is linked to issue #294: if we want to encourage implementations to omit host, we should probably leave it out of the static header table.

Hervé.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com]
> Sent: mercredi 23 octobre 2013 19:41
> To: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
> Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: question about :authority header field
> 
> On 23 October 2013 05:56, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > As described in origin-form and asterisk-form, HTTP/2 server is
> > expected to process the request which lacks :authority as valid, where
> > in draft-06, server rejects it if :host is missing. Is this correct?
> 
> Your examples are all correct.
> 
> The major change between HTTP/2.0 and HTTP/1.1 is that the host header is
> now optional.  It can be omitted if the absolute form (i.e.,
> :authority) is used.  In fact, we obliquely encourage implementations to omit
> host.
> 
> This places a constraint on an implementation that converts from 2.0 to 1.1; if
> host is not set it has to copy it from :authority.
> 
> But nothing has really changed other than that, host -> host and URL authority -
> > :authority.

Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 17:57:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:18 UTC