Re: Possible erratum in Part 1, section 9.4.

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