W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Connection header and hop-by-hop header fields

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:35:05 +0100
To: Robert Collins <robertc@squid-cache.org>
Cc: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120126223505.GB14715@1wt.eu>
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:30:36AM +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Part 1, section 6.1.3.1 "End-to-end and Hop-by-hop Header Fields"
> > says:
> >
> >>  The following HTTP/1.1 header fields are hop-by-hop header fields:
> >>
> >>  o  Connection
> >>  o  ...
> >>  o  Upgrade
> >>
> >>  All other header fields defined by HTTP/1.1 are end-to-end header
> >>  fields.
> >>
> >>  Other hop-by-hop header fields MUST be listed in a Connection header
> >>  field (Section 8.1).
> >
> > The fact that it says that "Other" fields must be listed means that
> > the headers in the preceding list *don't* need to be listed, right?
> 
> No, it has no bearing on the preceding list.
> 
> > I suspect that 8.4 and 8.7 are just wrong, and 8.1 needs to clarify
> > that it's only talking about newly-defined connection options, not the
> > predefined-hop-by-one ones, right?
> 
> Again, no. You've drawn a conclusion that wasn't suggested at by the text.

If some text can draw readers to wrong conclusions, we probably need to
find why and to adapt it.

Regards,
Willy
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 22:35:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:53 GMT