- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:42:23 -0800
- To: 'Jeffrey Mogul' <mogul@pa.dec.com>, "'urbani@ares.mctel.fr'" <urbani@ares.mctel.fr>
- Cc: "'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
Would the appropriate definition of connection then add "The Connection header MAY only specify hop-by-hop headers"? Yaron >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeffrey Mogul [SMTP:mogul@pa.dec.com] >Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 1997 10:29 AM >To: urbani@ares.mctel.fr >Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com >Subject: Re: Using of Connection header > > if the request contains these headers: > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Cache-Control: no-cache > Connection: Cache-Control > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > could i use my cache or not ? Because I must delete de > Cache-Control header (because Connection) but I don't know if i > must take or not care of it? > >Although the HTTP/1.1 specification does not state this explicitly, >it is not legal to send > > Connection: Cache-Control > >This is because the specification for Connection says > > The Connection general-header field allows the sender to specify > options that are desired for that particular connection and MUST NOT > be communicated by proxies over further connections. > >while the specification for Cache-control says > > Cache directives must be passed through by a proxy or gateway > application, regardless of their significance to that application, > since the directives may be applicable to all recipients along the > request/response chain. > >which implicitly prohibits turning Cache-control into a hop-by-hop >header. > >Because it would be against the rules to send this combination >of headers, the specification does not have to specify a particular >action to take if someone does it anyway. (We cannot possibly >specify an action to take upon receipt of every possible contradictory >combination of headers.) > >However, the robustness principle suggests that it's probably >safer to ignore the "Connection" header in this case than the >"Cache-control" header. > >-Jeff >
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 1997 17:20:48 UTC