(Message HTTP-TOEDIT:547) Return-Path: mogul@pa.dec.com Received: by zorch.w3.org; id AA01239; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:36:41 -0500 Received: from mail2.digital.com (mail2.digital.com [204.123.2.56]) by www10.w3.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA25788 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:36:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from acetes.pa.dec.com by mail2.digital.com (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA22568; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:30:40 -0800 Received: by acetes.pa.dec.com; id AA10269; Tue, 25 Feb 97 17:30:39 -0800 Message-Id: <9702260130.AA10269@acetes.pa.dec.com> To: jg@w3.org Cc: Yaron Goland Subject: minor editorial clarification (for ISSUES list) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 97 17:30:39 PST From: Jeffrey Mogul This seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. Except that I would say Message headers listed in the Connection header MUST NOT include end-to-end headers, such as Cache-control. -Jeff ------- Forwarded Message From: Yaron Goland To: "'Jeffrey Mogul'" , "'urbani@ares.mctel.fr'" Cc: "'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'" Subject: RE: Using of Connection header Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:42:23 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 55 TEXT Resent-Message-Id: <"3K8qC2.0.B84.2yu4p"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2554 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Would the appropriate definition of connection then add "The Connection header MAY only specify hop-by-hop headers"? Yaron >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeffrey Mogul [SMTP:mogul@pa.dec.com] >Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 1997 10:29 AM >To: urbani@ares.mctel.fr >Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com >Subject: Re: Using of Connection header > > if the request contains these headers: > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Cache-Control: no-cache > Connection: Cache-Control > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > could i use my cache or not ? Because I must delete de > Cache-Control header (because Connection) but I don't know if i > must take or not care of it? > >Although the HTTP/1.1 specification does not state this explicitly, >it is not legal to send > > Connection: Cache-Control > >This is because the specification for Connection says > > The Connection general-header field allows the sender to specify > options that are desired for that particular connection and MUST NOT > be communicated by proxies over further connections. > >while the specification for Cache-control says > > Cache directives must be passed through by a proxy or gateway > application, regardless of their significance to that application, > since the directives may be applicable to all recipients along the > request/response chain. > >which implicitly prohibits turning Cache-control into a hop-by-hop >header. > >Because it would be against the rules to send this combination >of headers, the specification does not have to specify a particular >action to take if someone does it anyway. (We cannot possibly >specify an action to take upon receipt of every possible contradictory >combination of headers.) > >However, the robustness principle suggests that it's probably >safer to ignore the "Connection" header in this case than the >"Cache-control" header. > >-Jeff > ------- End of Forwarded Message