W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 1995

Re: Keep-Alive Notes

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
Message-Id: <9510171707.aa03438@paris.ics.uci.edu>
> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:56 UTC