- From: Josh Cohen (Exchange) <joshco@exchange.microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 20:18:39 -0700
- To: "'Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu'" <Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu>
- Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> -----Original Message----- > From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu [mailto:Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu] > Sent: Saturday, September 04, 1999 9:52 PM > To: Josh Cohen (Exchange) > Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com > Subject: Re: Host header issue > > > But this could allow writing, say, an HTTP/2.0 spec that used > absolute URLs everywhere. (Though the complexity of writing > HTTP/1.1 may push that further into the future, and recent > talk leans more towards a binary wire protocol.) > > The Host: header was introduced because it allowed use of name > based virtual hosting without breaking old servers. It could be I agree with this.. > ignored by servers that did not understand it, whereas shifting > clients to using absolute URLs would have caused old HTTP/1.0 > servers to return "Forbidden" errors all over the place. > Yes, obviously a 1.0 server will choke all over the place if you include an absoluteURI. However, including both a host header and an absoluteURI will choke the server as well. If your talking to a 1.0 server, there simply is no way you can expect it to understand an absoluteURI. In the 1.1 case, it can understand both an absolute URI as well as the Host: header case. So, I dont see this as a compatible "transistion". If we perceive the "transistion" to be toward absoluteURIs, then we should not discourage their use. This is effectively what we have done. The http/1.1 spec teaches us that there is no good reason to use absoulteURIs since we MUST include a host header as well. (Even when we know that the server and proxy are 1.1 compliant and understand absoluteURIs). I guess what I'm complaining about is that the spec shouldnt require a server to bounce a request if there is an absoluteURI but no Host: header, especially when it can understand the implied host: header value. I think its especially frustrating since it violates one of the basic tenents of protocol design which is be conservative in what you send, but liberal in what you accept. I think we should remove this MUST from server implementation. > So you can look at this potentially as a two phase transition, > each step of which is compatible with one version prior. > > -- > Albert Lunde Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu >
Received on Sunday, 5 September 1999 20:23:13 UTC