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

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

From: Robert Collins <robertc@squid-cache.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:23:25 +1300
Message-ID: <CAJ3HoZ1CDa9vcG4dv50mHjg2qRk7x5mnG4OYxSrNUfPnvOtzDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> 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.

Agreed. I suspect just removing the 'Other...' sentence would help.

-Rob
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 23:23:53 GMT

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