- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 15:21:35 -0800
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: Lorenzo Vicisano <vicisano@iet.unipi.it>, http-wg mailing list <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> The `Connection: Keep-Alive my-name' solution allows each compliant > proxy to realize whether is talking to a compliant proxy/client or not. > > One quibble: we should not use a host name here; we should use > the IP address of the host (and on a multi-homed host or proxy, > the IP address that is actually assigned to the connection). This > avoid the overhead (and possibly the failure) of an extra DNS lookup > at each proxy and server. That won't work either (see below). > Aside from that, I agree; this is 100% foolproof because every link in > the chain must prove that it understands this header. I don't > understand Roy's comment that it does not adequately account for > hierarchical proxies or gateways. I was referring to the Proxy-Connection thingy in Alex's draft, which will not be in HTTP/1.1. The IP thingy has other problems. > Roy sez: > The only way to differentiate communication capabilities is through > the protocol name + version number, since that is the only feature > that cannot be passed on by a proxy. > The implication is that the 1.1 protocol spec will say something > like "a client or proxy must not send or forward a Keepalive: > header to a proxy [or server?] with a version number below 1.1". > Is that what you are planning, Roy? No, it says a recipient cannot trust a Connection header received from an HTTP/1.0 message. This can't be replaced by including the IP number in the header field because the IP is changed when sent through a tunnel. The only general way to solve this problem is to change to HTTP/1.1. > One problem that the "Keepalive: myaddress" approach seems to > solve better than the version-number based approach is that it > allows a 1.1 proxy to not implement persistent connections. > That is, under Roy's approach, persistent connection support > would have to be 100% mandatory for all 1.1 (and later) proxies. Nope -- removal/replacement of the Connection header, and any header fields named within the Connection header, will be mandatory. > Under the alternate approach, any proxy not wanting to support > persistent connections (either for implementation reasons or > for policy reasons) could simply drop the "Keepalive: myaddress" > header. Persistent connections are identified by the keep-alive keyword in the Connection header -- the Keep-Alive header is just for optional parameters describing the keep-alive. .....Roy
Received on Friday, 17 November 1995 15:40:25 UTC