- 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>
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