W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1997

Re: SSL Tunneling; Informational RFC; Last call?

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 16:39:58 PDT
Message-Id: <341F18CE.2448D19@parc.xerox.com>
To: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>
Cc: rlgray@raleigh.ibm.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> >  This then begs the question of whether the "200 OK" response to a
> > CONNECT request should include a content-type (our tunneling
> > implementation does not currently send one). I think that it should,
> > and a new MIME type like "application/tunnel" should be sent. This
> > is obviously not a requirement, but would be nice for completeness.
> 
> I have nothing against a MIME type, but I think that this RFC should
> document the current behavior, and currently there is no MIME type.
> 

Well, if the standard says that HTTP bodies must be labelled with
a content-type, then you should point out that this is an exception,
or recommend that it be sent but note that it isn't implemented.

That is, the RFC can not only document current behavior, it can also
propose changes to current behavior, if it's advisable.
-- 
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 1997 16:44:11 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:01 EDT