W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: Is forwarding hop-by-hop headers a MUST-level violation?

From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0407121429080.988-100000@egate.xpasc.com>

There should be an exception for ALL headers declared in the
specification. It is absurd to bloat the size of HTTP headers to declare
information contained in the RFC.

It is a long time since I spent time thinking about the specification but
my recollection is that intent is to provide extensibility by providing a
mechanism for declaring new hop-hop headers.

Dave Morris

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Jamie Lokier wrote:

>
> Alex Rousskov wrote:
> > I do not see a compelling reason to make an exception for
> > Transfer-Encoding. Do you?
>
> Yes.  The reason is similar to making an exception for Connection.
> Any agent which parses and understands Connection (i.e. to filter out
> named headers) _must_ also understand and parse Transfer-Encoding, as
> it determines the message boundary.
>
> Therefore there is nothing to be gained by putting Transfer-Encoding
> in Connection.  Mentioning it is always redundant.
>
> This isn't true of the other hop-by-hop headers.
>
> -- Jamie
>
Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 17:43:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:35 GMT