- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:06:17 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Joe Orton <joe@manyfish.co.uk>
- cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Joe, The MUST clause wording is clearly buggy. The clause should either be deleted or reworded to specify a different reason. FWIW, in our compliance tests, we saw only one HTTP proxy obeying this MUST and sending Connection: close, TE when forwarding chunked messages. On the other hand, the same proxy was forwarding TE header passed to it, violating another, far more important MUST! Alex. On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Joe Orton wrote: > > I'm confused by this paragraph in section 14.39 of 2616: > > The TE header field only applies to the immediate connection. > Therefore, the keyword MUST be supplied within a Connection header > field (section 14.10) whenever TE is present in an HTTP/1.1 message. > > Since TE is already defined as hop-by-hop in section 13.5.1, it implies > that any hop-by-hop headers used MUST be supplied in a Connection > header, which is incorrect. > > Why is there a MUST that TE specifically is included in a Connection > header? Is it really for compatibility with RFC2068-compliant proxies, > which don't know that TE is hop-by-hop? > > Regards, > > joe > >
Received on Saturday, 3 August 2002 11:06:26 UTC