httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Subject Re: more on ServerPath
Date Mon, 03 Jun 1996 05:55:59 GMT
> The patch also includes one other thing that I think is important that
> we get in Apache 1.1, because who knows when 1.2 will come out (at
> this rate): If a HTTP/1.1 or later request comes in, without the
> hostname sent as well, it sends back a 400 Bad Request, as per the
> HTTP/1.1 spec. The reason for this requirement is to make sure that
> browsers put Host: headers in their requests, and since we're the most
> popular server, we should help out, yes? Because we're not yet
> HTTP/1.1 compliant, and because the HTTP/1.1 spec isn't done yet, I
> made it looser about checking than it might otherwise be; it can be
> sent as either 1) a Host: header or 2) a full URI (I don't think http-wg has
> decided really yet whether 1 is still required in the case of 2), and
> it doesn't have to be a valid hostname. The client can send
> "Host: brownies are cool", and it'll accept it. After all, in some
> weird nameing scheme, that might translate to your server...

Sounds okay for now.  The final HTTP/1.1 requirement will be something
along the lines of (in pseudocode):

   If request == HTTP/1.1 and no Host header field
       then respond 400;
   If server is multihomed
       If request-URI is absolute
          then extract host from net_loc;
          If request includes Host field
             then extract host from Host field value;
             respond 400;

Note that the first requirement does not apply to HTTP/1.2 requests (yet).
This is what the real draft04 will look like.


View raw message