W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 2000

RE: Legal tokens

From: Joris Dobbelsteen <joris.dobbelsteen@mail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 19:32:29 +0200
To: "WWW WG (E-mail)" <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
Message-ID: <001201c01828$6ee7d720$0d0aa8c0@THUIS.LOCAL>
If

Connection: Close, keep-alive

is legal, how about

Cache-Control: Public, Private, max-age=30, s-maxage=30

They are both buggy, and from my opinion not to be considered legal.


- Joris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Koen Holtman [mailto:koen@win.tue.nl]
> Sent: woensdag 6 september 2000 7:25
> To: Jim Witt
> Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: Re: Legal tokens
> 
> 
> >Can anyone tell me if the following is a legal header ofr a response
> >from a web server?
> >
> >
> >   *** [tid=10e 108] Receiving response ( 30/8/2000 14:59:10 )
> >
> >   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> >   Server: Netscape-Enterprise/4.0
> >   Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:02:26 GMT
> >   Content-length: 148
> >   Content-type: image/gif
> >   Connection: Close
> >   Connection: keep-alive
> >
> >
> >Specifically, it is the 'Connection: Close' followed by 'Connection:
> >keep-alive' that is in question.
> 
> Interesting combination of headers.  Digging through the 
> specs, section
> 19.7.1 of RFC2068 seems to allow the sending of `Connection:
> keep-alive' to initiate a persistent connection with some legacy
> HTTP/1.0 clients.  The `Connection: Close' at the same time forces a
> non-persistent connection in the case that the client is a 1.1 client.
> Nothing seems to forbid the use of both at the same time.
> 
> So I think it is legal, even unambiguous.  But the semantics is
> strange, so it probably reflects a bug in the server.
> 
> >
> >Thanks in advance
> >
> >
> >Jim Witt
> >on-site at EC Cubed
> 
> Koen.
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2000 18:34:39 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:39 EDT