- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:27:10 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: Adrian Custer <ac@pocz.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2011-06-22 14:22, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Adrian Custer wrote: >> In HTTPbis, Part 1, Section 9.4, the fourth(ish) paragraph states: >> >> The Host header field MUST be sent in an HTTP/1.1 request even if the >> request-target is in the form of an absolute-URI, since this allows >> the Host information to be forwarded through ancient HTTP/1.0 proxies >> that might not have implemented Host. >> >> but I do not understand this ending "implemented Host". > > If the client does not send the "Host" header, and you have an ancient > HTTP/1.0 proxy that does not generate the "Host" header on its own, then > the request will not have a "Host" header when it reaches the server. As > the server might depend on the presence of the Host header to serve the > request, it's better to send the "Host" header even if the information > in the header is, strictly speaking, redundant in the specific case. If > that clarifies the intended meaning, how would you phrase that? Makes sense. I think, minimally, the sentence should end with "...that might not have implemented the Host header field." Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 12:27:46 UTC