- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:19:15 +1000
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
OK, assigning for -23 with an editorial change to P1 to note the difference from 2616 (e.g., in "Changes from RFC2616"). On 30/04/2013, at 5:58 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > On Apr 29, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> Well, they're listed as hop-by-hop in 2616, and AFAICT we haven't explicitly discussed changing that. > > It's complicated. The Proxy-auth fields were defined before > keep-alive and Connection existed. I remember trying to phrase > that multiple times back in the early days. In this case, it is > better to simply define how it works without Connection and let > the normal Connection semantics apply when used (if ever). > >> Are you saying that they shouldn't be included in Connection, ever? > > No, I am just saying that Connection is not required; if it is not > included in Connection, then the intention is that it be forwarded > until consumed. OTOH, if it is included in Connection, then it > will be consumed or deleted by the immediate recipient. AFAIK, > these fields are not normally included in Connection, but there > might be a good reason to if the proxy selection is complicated. > > ....Roy -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 05:19:41 UTC