3 ms·
It’s a good thing we have RFCs! For duplicate Host, you MUST respond with a 400. If the Host is different than the authority, Host must be ignored. If Host is n
by freeone3000 1y ago
It’s a good thing we have RFCs! For duplicate Host, you MUST respond with a 400. If the Host is different than the authority, Host must be ignored. If Host is not specified, it must be provided to upstream. See “Host” in RFC 7230:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7230#section-5.4 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7230#section-5.4
- ranger_danger 1y agoit's a good thing all RFCs are 100% specified with no ambiguities. EDIT: Sorry I dropped my /s. I was only trying to say that unfortunately not all RFCs are sufficiently specified... and that I think saying "good thing we have RFCs" should not imply they will all be sufficiently specified, which is how I interpreted their comment... and didn't feel like typing all this out, but I guess it was necessary anyway.
- necovek 1y agoThat's a very weird take as a reply on a bit that is sufficiently specified.
- ranger_danger 1y agoSorry, what I was implying is that "It’s a good thing we have RFCs" doesn't mean that they ARE always sufficiently specified... even if this one is.
- necovek 1y agoI understand that: the problem is that in this example, it is, so the problem is obviously somewhere else — that's what we should explore. Is it just that the RFC has not been read properly? Maybe, but even if it was, I do not think having precisely defined behaviour in RFCs is sufficient: real world implementations have to be more flexible due to other buggy implementations they interact with.
- pixl97 1y agoI mean, I was pointing out one in a chain of security failures reverse proxies have had. I could probably point out 20-30 other ones that have cropped up. Adding the binary complexity to H2 has really increased the number of these coming.