W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: NEW ISSUE: editorial bug in 13.5.1

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:17:41 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Jeffrey Mogul <Jeff.Mogul@hp.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1166055461.3890.98.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
Jeffrey Mogul schrieb:
>     Proposal: just say...:
>         Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header
>         (Section 14.10).

ons 2006-12-13 klockan 11:44 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke:

> 	Future revisions of the HTTP/1.1 specification and later
> 	versions of HTTP MAY introduce new hop-by-hop headers. Those
> 	headers MUST be listed in a Connection header (Section 14.10)
> 	for backwards compatibility with this specification.

Think I prefer Jeffs simple and concise definition. We also have RFC2145
(even if informal) which do guide future specification authors how to
read this..

On a side note personally I think it was a mistake to define hop-by-hop
headers which does not need to be mentioned in Connect as every special
case allows for broken implementations but it's a bit late to do
anything about that now.


Received on Thursday, 14 December 2006 00:18:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:40 UTC