On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote: > In HTTP/1.0, looking at the Host header is non standard. We can look at it > if it is there (and I believe we do; if we don't it is very simple to change > that), but in the end the HTTP/1.0 protocol is inefficient broken in many
The Host header is not specified in the standard - it's what we would call a 'standard extension' :-) There are few extensions to the HTTP/1.0 that are in very common use - in the sense that all browsers and most clients support them, and Host is the best example. Some of those extensions found their way into HTTP/1.1 spec. AFAIK Host: allways worked this way ( at least in the last 5 years ). > many ways, and it's not Tomcat's job to fix it. If NAT doesn't work with > HTTP/1.0, then it is the protocol's fault. I don't know any client these > days which wouldn't use HTTP/1.1 in its header anyway. > In HTTP/1.1, we *only* look at the host header (so it works fine). No, it's just a bug in our code ( both 3.3 and coyote ). If a Host header is present, it should be interpreted exaclty as in HTTP/1.1. > I see a lot of noise from you about this trivial issue. Is there something I > missed ? I guess we're missing Nacho's commit that fixes the problem :-) It seems to be an itch for him - we're just making noise to encourage him to fix it :-) Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
