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

Re: About that Host: header....

From: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 08:15:00 PST
To: HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <3158182A@MSMAIL.INDY.TCE.COM>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/84

Maurizio Codogno writes in <199603261223.NAA05572@beatles.cselt.stet.it>:
>But what if people write in the specs that
>1.1 servers MUST recognize both form, and 1.1 clients SHOULD send full
>but MUST fall back to the Host: form in case of a 404 error sent by a
>1.0 server? True, there is a bandwidth waste, but it should not be
>relevant. And in this way, the transition to 2.0 will be smoother.

Eeesh, this is a big, big lose IMHO.  Sending the full URI would mean a 404 
on almost every request for quite some time to come on the Internet.  Jim's 
#4 is the reasonable choice.

BTW, I can testify to the truthfulness of "admins don't change servers until 
the users complain".  That is why I am still running CERN 3.0 on my server, 
and why we ran it on our proxy until recently.  If it has the capabilities 
you need, and it isn't broke, you don't fix it.
Mark Leighton Fisher                   Thomson Consumer Electronics
fisherm@indy.tce.com                   Indianapolis, IN
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 1996 05:20:59 UTC

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