W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2017

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-01.txt

From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:16:43 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNAMw5xkGx6h81HO4A52GwCVRSVG23KH41Y-9QXB==Bk7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 26 April 2017 at 07:43, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

> --------
> In message <99c23bc4-069e-fd33-5b48-0942e0708d31@treenet.co.nz>, Amos
> Jeffries
> writes:
> >Reading section 7.1 I am wondering if this is significant enough to use
> >HTTP/1.2 version number for 1.x agents as the signal that the sender can
> >receive any header in self-describing Common Structure.
> That's an interesting question...
​Very interesting.  The request line is a hop-by-hop message, right?  So it
couldn't be used as a signal for end-to-end headers.

How many middleboxen out there are likely to inspect the request line only
as far as 'HTTP_VERSION > 1.0' and then barf if one of their response
headers looks weird?  Although I suppose the answer is not that different
from: how many will forward X-Accept-Fancy-Headers blindly and then
barf...  Pity there was no strong hop-by-hop vs end-to-end flag on headers.

  Matthew Kerwin
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 23:17:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:15:03 UTC