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: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 08:42:38 +0100
Message-Id: <199603250743.AA127799780@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/72
Roy says:
> Because it doesn't gain us anything more than just sending Host on
> all HTTP/1.x requests.  If there was something wrong with the Host
> solution, then I could understand the desire to do that.  However,
> given that there is nothing wrong with the Host solution, and Host
> has already been deployed, this all seems like a waste of time.

The things that are wrong with the Host: solution, to my mind, are:
- It STILL leaves us with a protocol where URLs are things that protocol
  entities have to break into little pieces and chew upon.
- It STILL leaves us with an UA-to-cache protocol that is incompatible with
  the UA-to-server and cache-to-server protocol.
- It STILL loses the method information.
- It STILL gives us no path to where it seems everyone wants to be, namely
  with full URLs, until we throw out HTTP/1.x altogether

These aren't "nothing". The question is which pain is lesser.

           Harald A
Received on Sunday, 24 March 1996 23:45:36 UTC

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