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

On 30/01/2013 10:34 p.m., Roland Zink wrote:
> On 30.01.2013 10:31, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> +1
>

Indeed. +1 on all the above.

Amos

Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 10:03:37 UTC