The following reply was made to PR protocol/1454; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Marc Slemko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Dean Gaudet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Apache bugs database <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: protocol/1454: Apache doesn't always understand requests with the
absoluteURI in them
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 15:16:03 -0700 (MST)
On 22 Nov 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> "Be liberal in what you receive, be conservative in what you send" does
> not really apply to this situation. Client authors would be foolish to
> not test their HTTP/1.1 clients against Apache 1.2.x; given that it has
> such widespread usage. When they do test them as such they will discover
> that they really do have to follow section 9:
>
> The Host request-header field (section 14.23) MUST accompany all
> HTTP/1.1 requests.
>
> and section 14.23:
>
> A client MUST include a Host header field in all HTTP/1.1 request
> messages on the Internet (i.e., on any message corresponding to a
> request for a URL which includes an Internet host address for the
> service being requested). If the Host field is not already present,
> an HTTP/1.1 proxy MUST add a Host field to the request message prior
> to forwarding it on the Internet. All Internet-based HTTP/1.1 servers
> MUST respond with a 400 status code to any HTTP/1.1 request message
> which lacks a Host header field.
>
> Given that it's stated twice in the standard there really is no excuse.
I agree that the spec, as written, does not imply that any request without
a Host: header is valid; just because you ignore it for the purposes of
figuring out what host it is for doesn't mean it doesn't have to be there.
It may or may not be desirable if things did work that way, however I
can't interpret the spec to suggest they do.
FYI, on a sidenote, a while back I tested half a dozen or so HTTP/1.1
servers and about half accepted such requests without Host: headers and
about half didn't.
