- From: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:03:16 -0500
- To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "Kris Zyp" <kzyp@sitepen.com>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, public-webapi@w3.org, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
On Feb 19, 2008 2:30 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 19, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Robert Sayre wrote: > > > On Feb 19, 2008 1:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > >> > >> Probably the appropriate forum to make this proposal would be the > >> IETF > >> HTTP Working Group. I'll join the appropriate mailing list if others > >> are interested in pursuing it there. In advance of this, we could > >> agree by convention on an unofficial "Connection: x-pipeline" value > >> to > >> see how well this proposal works in practice. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > > > > It's a good idea, but some proxies forward hop-by-hop headers. :( > > See <http://www.mnot.net/blog/2007/06/20/proxy_caching> > > That document mentions some proxies forwarding headers listed in > "Connection", and some specific fixed hop-by-hop headers (Trailer, TE, > Upgrade). But do any proxies actually forward the "Connection" header > itself? Maybe mnot can help us out. Mark? > > FWIW, the next Firefox beta will have pipelining enabled for https. I > > won't be surprised if we hit bad bugs. Falling back to https in > > combination with your proposed connection token might be a fine idea. > > That would certainly remove the risk of mistaken forwarding of the > "Connection" header. I was hoping it would avoid buggy origin servers as well. Firefox has some heuristics that avoid known-broken implementations, but it probably isn't complete, and sometimes that information isn't provided. -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2008 20:03:31 UTC