Re: New CT Draft 1y (was Re: [minutes] BPWG Teleconference 2010-02-02)

I reflected that change in an in-place edit of 1z, hence avoiding the 
problem of thinking of a new name.

Jo

On 09/02/2010 13:08, Eduardo Casais wrote:
> Re-reading 4.1.5.5 and comparing with older versions, I feel that the requirement 
> of keeping old header field values "as-is", so that they can be re-instated via a
> simple copy is no longer explicit. 
> 
> Thus,
> 
> "When forwarding an HTTP request with altered HTTP header fields, in addition 
> to complying with the rules of normal HTTP operation, proxies must include in 
> the request copies of the unaltered header field values in the form 
> "X-Device-"<original header name> so that it is possible to reconstruct the 
> original header field values."
> 
> becomes
> 
> "When forwarding an HTTP request with altered HTTP header fields, in addition 
> to complying with the rules of normal HTTP operation, proxies must include in 
> the request additional fields in the form "X-Device-"<original header name> 
> whose values are verbatim copies of the corresponding unaltered header field 
> values, so that it is possible to reconstruct the original header fields."
> 
> Apart from this, I do not see anything more to adjust in
> the text.
> 
> 
> E.Casais
> 
> 
>       
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 13:37:02 UTC