- From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:08:22 -0500
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thanks Roy. So "Host" is not so much a mechanism for virtual hosting, it's just one part of the URI (the other part is Request-URI). On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Zhong Yu wrote: > >> Quoting http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-22#section-5.4 >> >> A client MUST send a Host header field in all HTTP/1.1 request >> messages. >> >> If the target URI includes an authority component, then >> the Host field-value MUST be identical to that authority component >> after excluding any userinfo (Section 2.7.1). >> >> If the authority >> component is missing or undefined for the target URI, then the Host >> header field MUST be sent with an empty field-value. >> >> Can someone elaborate on the last sentence and give an example? Thanks. > > HTTP can be used with any URI as a request target. The sentence > tells the client what to do if that URI has no authority component. > > GET urn:ietf:rfc:2616.txt HTTP/1.1 > Host: > > Without that sentence, a reasonably sane person might conclude that > no Host header field would be sent, but that would result in a 400 > error due to the IESG-imposed requirement in the first sentence. > > ....Roy >
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2013 19:08:49 UTC