RE: About that Host: header....

>----------
>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
>