- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:59:45 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Cc: Jeffrey Mogul <Jeff.Mogul@hp.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Jeffrey Mogul wrote: > > All hop-by-hop headers (other than Connection) MUST be listed > > in the Connection header. > > Again, existing implementations don't list Transfer-Encoding in the > Connection header. This is very common and conforming behaviour. Understood. Most existing implementations do not list most of the explicitly documented hop-by-hop headers in the Connection header. > Is this proposal meant to imply that all such existing > implementations are no longer conforming? Yes. Why is that a problem? We are changing the old protocol (RFC 2616) to fix a bug. Old implementations might be compliant with RFC 2616 (the vast majority is not). New or updated implementations may be compliant with RFC XXXX. The change does not break old implementations, and might actually help some. I do not see a compelling reason to make an exception for Transfer-Encoding. Do you? Note that several HTTP errata entries would have a similar effect of making implementations based on old/buggy RFC 2616 incompliant with the updated HTTP/1.1 standard. That fact alone does not prove me right, of course. Thanks, Alex.
Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 14:59:53 UTC