Re: Do we kill the "Host:" header in HTTP/2 ?

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
--------
In message <CAP+FsNf73hw8YDgiLoPCv-CgSGXuKv-7pG9Hqc5H7NGYS7Zr3A@mail.gmail.com>, Roberto Peon write
s:

>I'm saying that we're not currently talking about killing the host header.
>Are you suggesting that it should be killed?

My inclination is that it should, and the text in RFC2616 seems to hint
that others have tagged its existence as a mistake already long time ago.

I also don't spot any obvious down sides if we remove it.

Given that the conversion rules for {abs} <--> {rel+Host} has already
been laid down firmly many years ago, it will not raise any isses
for HTTP/1 <--> HTTP/2 conversion.

It unifies an aspect of the "proxy-version" and the "server-version"
of the protocol, that can't but help make clients code simpler.

And it would make HTTP/2 a speed improvement over HTTP/1 since all the
"routing" information load-balancers need, will be collected in
one place and up front.

And, not the least:  It is certainly easier to explain clearly.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 09:32:03 UTC