Opened 10 years ago

Closed 10 years ago

Last modified 10 years ago

#416 closed design (wontfix)

Explicitly Hop-by-Hop

Reported by: mnot@… Owned by: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging@…
Priority: normal Milestone: 22
Component: p1-messaging Severity: In WG Last Call
Keywords: Cc:


5.6 Message Routing -- 2616 listed several headers that are always hop-by-hop, whether or not they show up in Connection; e.g., Keep-Alive, Upgrade, TE. This spec AFAICT does not enumerate them, which may cause interop problems. Was that intentional?

Change History (3)

comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by mnot@…

In Atlanta:

rf: this will be forwarded if they aren't in the connection header; having a list would cause problems with intermediaries that pass these

mnot: this could surprise some people and should be called out

rf: this should be noted as a change from 2616

jr: we already have this

mnot: we probably need a callout for this one

rf: I'm trying to reduce the number of occurences of this; they don't help the people reading the document for the first time

comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by fielding@…

  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 22
  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from new to closed

yes, the change was intentional.

comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by mnot@…

As long as it isn't removed from Changes from RFC2616, I'm OK.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.