Re: updated http 1.1 rfcs and hop-by-hop

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Wed, 20 August 2014 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031851A0404 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 07:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.97
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.97 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Es1wji3WClWe for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 07:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EDCD1A03D9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 07:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XK6Y3-00053V-Gu for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 14:07:35 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 14:07:35 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XK6Y3-00053V-Gu@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1XK6Xa-0004sV-Dn for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 14:07:06 +0000
Received: from sub4.mail.dreamhost.com ([69.163.253.135] helo=homiemail-a107.g.dreamhost.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1XK6XU-0005en-Pk for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 14:07:06 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a107.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a107.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71962007F115; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 07:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=gbiv.com; bh=Wcl2boKiRk0KH8nFxTjqX6QCjec=; b=SyL9BaqVRc+Y7HpzZotVEuufg0p/ ie7zlz3GBjppJXwyyJmORncHFgA6PSb4czA1ZQedyT6+8Dy+HRyqEYrqdD4YiBE/ br+QoHxnKz8RQbof29tsl4RFcGlm6z6cICbYy7TAXBCck+V0tqkcqCfcGockWe1s bUhCbzDFVNZP3OU=
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (ip68-228-83-124.oc.oc.cox.net [68.228.83.124]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by homiemail-a107.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A3CB22007F111; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 07:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGT4ZFhpMRstAZH=NHHo_yLHj7N7MUtgz6ahUwCHRQrojrLufg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 07:06:37 -0700
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <414FA98B-F8D3-491A-AD38-A3F42F51945D@gbiv.com>
References: <CAGT4ZFhOmN6N9zT0Z=edx6_kMUPczOc4zVNjQzDk5Bw3DFjtww@mail.gmail.com> <CAGT4ZFjt__Ct2n06gWJ5A2yLU0ZjTkSR19JG02PJ0W4SzRr=nQ@mail.gmail.com> <53F2E29D.7070506@treenet.co.nz> <CAGT4ZFjz52EesnhE9g4d-B4-XRKgioMaHetXOpyeBtgstpDHsQ@mail.gmail.com> <53F31646.3060801@treenet.co.nz> <CAGT4ZFhpMRstAZH=NHHo_yLHj7N7MUtgz6ahUwCHRQrojrLufg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=69.163.253.135; envelope-from=fielding@gbiv.com; helo=homiemail-a107.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.450, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XK6XU-0005en-Pk c27fdbc656caabd81dc429ea0a326e45
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: updated http 1.1 rfcs and hop-by-hop
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/414FA98B-F8D3-491A-AD38-A3F42F51945D@gbiv.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26677
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Aug 19, 2014, at 3:35 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:

> Hey,
> 
> Thanks, this is helping my comprehension. I've written up a blog post
> describing the relation between the new HTTP 1.1 RFCs and Python WSGI
> spec here:
> 
> http://blog.startifact.com/posts/new-http-rfcs-versus-wsgi.html
> 
> Hopefully I didn't get it too wrong. I'll bring up this post to the
> Python web special interest group too.

Transfer-Encoding is not listed in Connection because removing it
without decoding the message body would be a severe error.

The notion that certain header fields are "hop-by-hop" in RFC2616
was poorly considered. Fields are always forwarded unless there exists
a specific requirement to delete them in transit, where each such
requirement effectively depends on the conformance and version of the
recipient.  Hence, the Connection header field has a specific requirement
to delete the listed fields and itself.

Transfer-Encoding does not have a specific requirement regarding
deletion of the field, but does require that its value correspond
to the transfer codings that are applied to the message body.
Hence, when one or more of those codings is decoded, the sender must
adjust the Transfer-Encoding field accordingly.

....Roy