>> Yep. It's a bit redundant, but consider that CONNECT is already the
>> odd kid among the HTTP verbs. Most other verbs only take an absolute
>> path URI, without host component.
>
> On the other hand, in a proxy context the host component is always
> present even for the other methods. ("The absoluteURI form is REQUIRED
> when the request is being made to a proxy.") In that sense the host
> header is sort-of redundant for all proxy requests, and could be used
> for name-based "do we act as a proxy or an origin server" decisions.I would agree with that. When thinking about it, the Host header doesn't make any sense to me. My expectation would be that the proxy server uses the host name given after GET (or CONNECT) to regulate access control (and to forward it as 'new' Host header) and the Host header to disambiguate between multiple virtual hosts (e. g. like in my case with a configuration where a normal web server and a proxy server have the same IP address and are represented by two different Apache virtual hosts). With that, both host fields would serve different purposes and wouldn't be redundant. Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
