Re: Headers / caches proposal (revised)

On 5/2/06, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2006/05/02, at 1:33 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> > Combining these lists, your list does not include Connection,
> > Upgrade, Expect, Via, From, Max-Forwards or Proxy-Authorization.
> > Are you convinced all those are safe? Do you think my specific
> > justifications for Connection, Upgrade and Expect were wrong?
>
> WRT Connection: Mark Baker made an argument that someone may design
> an extension that is hop-by-hop, and therefore needs to be added to
> Connection. Note that the proposal doesn't allow it to be
> overwritten; only appended to.

Right.

>
> WRT Upgrade: I think you're right.

Ditto.

> WRT Expect: I think you're right, but there should also be a section
> about E/C handling in send().

I could see it being useful, though I don't know if current
implementations would handle Continue.

> WRT From: I don't think any software actually uses this to inform
> behaviour; it's just a way to give a more persistent address for the
> user.

I don't see any problem with this in the single domain case.

> WRT Max-Forwards: I'm ambivalent about this one. It could be useful
> in debugging proxies, etc. and it has pretty well-defined behaviour...

I think that unless there's a clear reason to disallow a header, that
it should be allowed, so I'm happy to leave it off the list.

> WRT Proxy-Authorization: Authorization is allowed to be overwritten,
> so it seems reasonable to allow Proxy-Auth too (although the use case
> would indeed be pretty esoteric; I suppose someone doing something
> inside the firewall might want to do something here...)

Right.

Mark.

Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2006 01:45:20 UTC