W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1996

Re: About that Host: header....

From: <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 11:32:42 +0100
Message-Id: <199603221032.AA058410774@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: jg@w3.org
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/50
(CC lines trimmed - they were getting hairy...)

Let me say that I as AD will go along with the group consensus on three

1) I believe that there is a rough consensus in the group
2) I believe that the consensus is clearly documented, and that the
   documentation reflects the consensus
3) I believe that the consensus will not cause grievous harm to the

In this case I don't believe that condition (2) is satisfied: I can't tell
from looking at documents exactly what the consensus is.
Condition (1) may be satisfied; the mailing list appeared to be in rough
consensus, but it's not clear to me what they had consent about.
John Klensin seems to contend that condition (3) is not satisfied.

JG's recent message <mid:9603160004.aa17589@paris.ics.uci.edu>
seems to be uncontroversial with respect to what the host: header should
look like if there is one, so I'll assume that's settled.

The issues list has the text:

 Full URL must be accepted by server, may be sent by client.

Since JG seems to think that uncontroversial, I'll assume that's settled too.
The questions before the WG seems to be:

- Should full URLs be mandatory to send for all HTTP/1.1 clients when
  they don't know that they are talking to a HTTP/1.0 server?
- Should the host: header be deleted from the spec?
- Are there less extreme positions that make sense?

I think we actually need concrete text to be sure what we're talking about.
Jim, where would such text actually fit into the current or next draft?

                            Harald A
Received on Friday, 22 March 1996 02:43:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:58 UTC