- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@ebuilt.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 16:50:04 -0800
- To: Howard Melman <howard@silverstream.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
> I came at it from another spot. While trying to work around > an IE bug: > > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q305/2/17.ASP > > we found our server implementation could do better at > sending "Connection: close" when it knew it was going to > close the connection and not just relying on clients to cope > well with dropped connections. In trying to get it right, we > weren't sure if we should send it on 100-continue responses. > Someone here read: > > HTTP/1.1 applications that do not support persistent > connections MUST include the "close" connection option in > every message. > > and thought we needed to send it (a 100-continue response is > a message so we MUST include it). It didn't make sense to > me, thought it could break things, and wanted to check what > was right. Oh, I didn't realize you were asking about something that is already specified incorrectly in the spec. That is definitely an error in section 14.10 of RFC 2616. It should say An HTTP/1.1 client that does not support persistent connections MUST include the "close" connection option in every request message. An HTTP/1.1 server that does not support persistent connections MUST include the "close" connection option in every response message that does not have a 1xx (informational) status code. since, as you say, it doesn't make any sense to send it on a 1xx message. ....Roy
Received on Friday, 9 November 2001 01:09:58 UTC