W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1997

Re: [Fwd: Re: PEP draft for review]

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:05:49 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199702131905.UAA02375@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2358
Dan Connolly:
>Koen Holtman wrote:
>> You have Protocol and C-Protocol headers.  Why don't you have
>> Protocol-Info and C-Protocol-Info headers?
>Protocol C-Protocol are request/response headers: they give information
>about the transaction, and a distinct header field name is necessary
>for proper integration with the HTTP 1.1 Connection: header field
>Protocol-Info, on the other hand, is an entity header: it applies
>to resources, either those explicitly named using the "for" syntax,

Doesn't protocol-info apply to a single hop in the connection, not to the
resource on the origin server, when {scope conn} is used?  

I think using C-protocol-info in stead of Protocol-info: ..  {scope conn} ..
may make some things easier for proxies and for 1.0 compatibility.  Wouldn't
proxies have to strip off the hop-only protocol info when relaying the
message to the next hop?


Received on Thursday, 13 February 1997 11:17:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:01 UTC