W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2018

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-replay-03, "5.1. The Early-Data Header Field"

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 19:38:11 +1000
Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <535EDFED-F4D4-46DF-81A7-5FB4DB5DF817@mnot.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>

> On 15 May 2018, at 7:28 pm, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> FWIW I've used many times "Host:" with no name when connecting to an
> HTTP/1.1 server without knowing its name, and rarely faced any issue
> with this. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that many
> implementations support an empty header field and distinguish it from
> an absent one.

Sure - although that's pretty broken for Host, this isn't a completely uncommon thing. When we did SOAPAction way back when (shudder), we came to the conclusion that some HTTP implementations might drop empty headers, so it wasn't safe -- but I don't remember how much data that was based upon.

That said, just because it's possible with HTTP headers doesn't mean it needs to be possible with structured headers.


Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2018 09:38:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:15:21 UTC