> De: Ryan Lubke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Enviado el: 28 de agosto de 2002 20:29 > Para: Tomcat Developers List > Asunto: RE: Spec question: RE BUG 12052 > > > > > The port MUST be the one in the Host Header if one is > present,and should > > be present if the request is HTTP1.1 compliant, > > > What if the Host header is supplied, but the value is empty. > This seems > legal per section 14.23 of the HTTP/1.1 RFC? > >
1) For me after ( another ) reading of rfc2616, from the point you named and following the references given there, i've found that in 5.2 seems to say that a empty Host: header must be responded by 400 because empty it is not a valid Host name.. 2) Checked Apache2 and it gives a 200 when issuing a GET / with empty Host:, at it replies a 200. I think your problem is related to issuing a 30X after a request with empty Host: header?, well it's really a border case... One never can assure if a Location header will have correct information, because is mandated to follow a filled Host hdr if present, sending a 301 with a guessed Host name in the Location, shouldnt be the worst solution to the problem.. I dont know how to make apache2 (anyone?) issue a unconditional redirect (301) after a request, but i suspect that if the Host Header is empty in such a request, it will try to form a correct Location header from the information it has at hand ( ServerName and his own local port), with Firewalls and NATs possibily an incorrect one? maybe.. In a vote, i would vote to make Tomcat issue a 400 in case of a empty Host header.. Saludos , Ignacio J. Ortega -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
