Hi, I was looking at RFC2616, Section 13.5.1 which currently ends with (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-13.5.1>): Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header, (section 14.10) to be introduced into HTTP/1.1 (or later). Sorry? My first idea was that the comma was just in the wrong place, making it Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header (section 14.10), to be introduced into HTTP/1.1 (or later). But of course that still doesn't make any sense. So I looked at RFC2068, Section 13.5.1 (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-13.5.1>) and that one says: Hop-by-hop headers introduced in future versions of HTTP MUST be listed in a Connection header, as described in section 14.10. Now that makes sense, and it seems that RFC2616 was broken when somebody tried to rewrite that sentence. Proposal: just say...: Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header (Section 14.10). Best regards, JulianReceived on Tuesday, 12 December 2006 15:44:34 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:12 UTC