- From: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 21:27:41 -0800 (PST)
- To: jg@w3.org
- Cc: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net, ari@netscape.com, paulle@microsoft.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Jeff Treuhaft <jeff@step.mcom.com>
> Discussion: > > I personally see only options 2 and 4 having a high likelyhood of > the "correct outcome" allowing multiple sites to be served from the > same server, within finite time of starting to transition to 1.1. I > believe the W.G. needs to select either 2 or 4 to resolve this > issue. > > There was a statement by Ari Luotonen at the IETF meeting that he > believed that solution 2) to be unacceptable to Netscape. Ari, is > this true now that you've had time to think about it? Paul, can you > see what Microsoft's opinion on this topic is? Yes, 2 is unacceptable. We'd be breaking the entire universe, or making an ugly kludge if we then require a retry with 1.0 if and when the server doesn't accept the 1.1 request. Furthermore, HTTP/1.x is defined to be backword and forward compatible with other HTTP/1.x, so even in that light this would be unacceptable, because a valid HTTP/1.1 request would not yield a correct response from a HTTP/1.0 server. Making the Host: header a _required_ header in HTTP/1.1 clearly solves the problem, and is painless, with no interoperability problems. How you choose to enforce it I don't really have a strong opinion about (error msg vs ignore); I don't think an error response should be required from servers that don't exploit the Host: header, but it would be fine for servers that serve multiple domains. Cheers, -- Ari Luotonen ari@netscape.com Netscape Communications Corp. http://home.netscape.com/people/ari/ 685 East Middlefield Road Mountain View, CA 94043, USA Netscape Server Development Team
Received on Monday, 18 March 1996 21:31:12 UTC