W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: TE header

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:06:17 -0600 (MDT)
To: Joe Orton <joe@manyfish.co.uk>
cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10208030845331.31522-100000@measurement-factory.com>


	The MUST clause wording is clearly buggy. The clause should
either be deleted or reworded to specify a different reason.

	FWIW, in our compliance tests, we saw only one HTTP proxy
obeying this MUST and sending
	Connection: close, TE
when forwarding chunked messages. On the other hand, the same proxy
was forwarding TE header passed to it, violating another, far more
important MUST!


On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Joe Orton wrote:

> I'm confused by this paragraph in section 14.39 of 2616:
>    The TE header field only applies to the immediate connection.
>    Therefore, the keyword MUST be supplied within a Connection header
>    field (section 14.10) whenever TE is present in an HTTP/1.1 message.
> Since TE is already defined as hop-by-hop in section 13.5.1, it implies
> that any hop-by-hop headers used MUST be supplied in a Connection
> header, which is incorrect.
> Why is there a MUST that TE specifically is included in a Connection
> header? Is it really for compatibility with RFC2068-compliant proxies,
> which don't know that TE is hop-by-hop?
> Regards,
> joe
Received on Saturday, 3 August 2002 11:06:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:35 UTC