W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: Is forwarding hop-by-hop headers a MUST-level violation?

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:30:35 +0100
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040723213035.GA1232@mail.shareable.org>

Alex Rousskov wrote:
> > I wouldn't be surprised to find some old products check for Connection
> > == "close", or !strncmp(connection, "close") if you see what I mean.
> I saw some _new_ products that do that. That is one reason why I am
> not pushing for (2).

Ouch.  Do the products you've seen check for (effectively)
!strcmp (connection, "close") or !strncmp (connection, "close", 5)?

If the former, is transmitting _two_ Connection headers, one of which
is literally "Connection: close", an adequate workaround for those products?

-- Jamie
Received on Friday, 23 July 2004 17:30:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:25 UTC