- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:41:44 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 14:30 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: > Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > > ... > > I am fine with deprecating 305 as "never implemented", moving it's > > definition to an appendix explaining the differences between 2616 and > > 2616bis. > > ... > > :-) > > That's what I was trying to do. > > Do you want to propose concrete text? I can try, but not sure the result is the best. Key points to include in priority order if anyone wants to try: - Commonly not implemented - Not obvious how it was meant to be implemented. Hop-by-hop or end-to-end? - If hop-by-hop then it can't be used for clients using an HTTP/1.0 proxy or HTTP/1.1 proxy not implementing 305. - If end-to-end then it can't be used for clients using a proxy as HTTP has no provision of clients requesting a chained proxy request. - Same functionality can almost be emulated using a 302/307 redirect to another request-URI acting as application level proxy for the resource, with the only noticeable difference being the request-URI (has mainly implications on relative references from the resulting resource). Regards Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 14:42:39 UTC