- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 13:07:43 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-05-07 07:19, Mark Nottingham wrote: > OK, assigning for -23 with an editorial change to P1 to note the difference from 2616 (e.g., in "Changes from RFC2616"). In -21, we removed the concept of implicit hop-by-hop altogether; and this is mentioned already: "Clarify exactly when "close" connection options have to be sent; drop notion of header fields being "hop-by-hop" without being listed in the Connection header field. (Section 6.1)" -- <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-21.html#rfc.section.A.2.p.9> Do we really need to mention Proxy-* explicitly? Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 28 July 2013 11:08:11 UTC