#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: |
Description
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@…
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.
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