- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 08:32:39 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Patrick McManus <patrick.ducksong@gmail.com>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, mvjames@ieee.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 02:13:02PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Reject, please. This is out of scope for an errata. And in addition it makes no sense at all : it demands that the User-Agent field is set with all CONNECT requests, while CONNECT simply opens a tunnel and doesn't need any extra information to set it up. This header field will be totally useless for the intermediary receiving it, and it will not be sent over the tunnel by definition since it's a tunnel and no single byte of the request is forwarded. Thus I'd reject it as invalid. Willy
Received on Sunday, 13 January 2019 07:33:34 UTC