- From: Ross Patterson <ROSSP@ss1.reston.vmd.sterling.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 98 12:15:58 EST
- To: jg@pa.dec.com, fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu, http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
jg@pa.dec.com (Jim Gettys) writes: >Actually, Roy, I see Ross's point here: it says "on the Internet". Some >might misinterpret this on a LAN or intranet. I agree there should be >no reference to TCP or other transport protocols in this paragraph, of >course, for the reasons you give. Right. >So I think striking the two phrases "on the Internet", and the word >"Internet-based" from the paragraph will reduce the wriggle room of >implementers to get it wrong. The result would be: > > > "A client MUST include a Host header field in all HTTP/1.1 request > messages (i.e., on any message corresponding to a > request for a URL which includes an Internet host address for the > service being requested). If the Host field is not already > present, an HTTP/1.1 proxy MUST add a Host field to the request > message prior to forwarding it. All > HTTP/1.1 servers MUST respond with a 400 (Bad Request) status code > to any HTTP/1.1 request message which lacks a Host header field." That's clearer, and jibes with the MUST in section 9. >I don't think that any arguments to allow the host header to be dropped >for PDA use are compelling enough to relax this requirement in this way. Indeed, one could argue that a PDA if RF/infrared/whatever communication with its base station should send Host headers if the URL includes a host address for the base station (e.g., running IP-on-the-air ala AMPRNet). By the same argument, if the URL requested by the PDA doesn't include a host address, no Host header is required (although that violates section 9). Ross Patterson VM Software Division Sterling Software, Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 1998 09:28:47 UTC