- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:25:13 +1300
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
apologies in advance if this is already in the issue tracker - I did look but didn't find it. The Keep-alive header is mentioned in 2 places only in RFC2616. In section 13.5.1 it is listed as a hop-by-hop header. In section 8.1.3 it is referred to in the context of persistent connections with HTTP/1.0 clients. By existing in section 13.5.1 it would imply that this is an HTTP/1.1 header, which appears is not the case. Perhaps of more importance is the Proxy-Connection header, which is still sent by IE, Firefox and Chrome (and many others), even though it is not an HTTP/1.1 or HTTP/1.0 header at all!. There is no reference to this header in RFC2616, its widespread use however makes it important. I would propose: 1. Modify text for 13.5.1 to only refer to HTTP/1.1 headers, or make it clear which headers are HTTP/1.0, or being referred to for other (e.g. compatibility) reasons. 2. Perhaps in the section on persistent connections with proxies (8.1.3) make some mention of Proxy-Connection and how to deal with it. I note there has been discussion on this list about dealing with the header (so why it persists is perplexing). 3. Put in a section on deprecated headers. If the headers are listed there, then a search on the header name will find them in that section, and people can stop perpetuating these problems. Is the recommended method to deal with Proxy-Connection simply to treat it as a backup for a connection tag (e.g. if there is no Connection tag look for a Proxy-Connection tag), but never send one? I'm wondering how some proxies deal with lack of a Proxy-connection tag, has there been any research done on this? Regards Adrien -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Monday, 9 March 2009 06:22:54 UTC