- From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 14:02:12 -0800
- To: "'bearheart@bearnet.com'" <bearheart@bearnet.com>, 'Ari Luotonen' <luotonen@netscape.com>
- Cc: "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>---------- >From: Ari Luotonen[SMTP:luotonen@netscape.com] >Sent: Monday, March 18, 1996 10:39 PM >In any case -- whether the host is in the URL or the Host: header is a >mere matter of taste. One of them breaks things, the other doesn't -- >so which one do we pick? >An observation: Another way to "clean up" the protocol is to move the >host part of the Request-URI in requests to proxies to the Host: >header. 1.1 proxies would have to accept them in both the Request-URI >and the Host: and send a warning to 1.1 clients that put them in the >Request-URI; 1.2 proxies (2.0?) could require that they be in the >Host: header. > >I personally prefer option #2 if I were designing the protocol from >scratch, but think that we may have to compromise here. I also agree >with John Klensin's observations 100%, but the each such cleanup takes >a "silver bullet" and I'd rather save mine for a case where the >workarounds are much more complicated and error prone than Host:. >(I.e., his general principal is correct, but this case may not be the >best application of it...) > >Paul >
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 1996 13:31:25 UTC