- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 17:07:51 -0700
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: "Eric W. Sink" <eric@rafiki.spyglass.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Huh? To me, it doesn't make sense to add a header to the HTTP
> spec whose only function is "to be determined". Either we need
> it and its function should be specified, or we aren't sure and
> so we shouldn't put it in the spec.
I already have a use for it to convey diagnostic information,
so it will be going in the first draft.
>...
> The only reason to introduce a specific header now (in HTTP 1.1)
> would be if it had to be protected from naive proxy behavior.
> That is, "this header should not be forwarded" or "this header
> must be rewritten when forwarding." But I have not seen any
> proposals for such protection, and I can't think of any reason
> why this would actually be needed here.
Huh? (my turn :)
That is written explicitly into the purpose of the Connection header,
and is why the Connection header consists of a list of field-names,
and thus explains why the header field is called Keep-Alive (the same
name as the Connection keyword).
.....Roy (and no, I am not going to change "Keep-Alive" to something
more meaningful -- the name was chosen via the www-talk
discussions of last year and is no longer changeable)
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 1995 17:51:53 UTC