Re: Last Call: <draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized-08.txt> ('Headers-Not-Recognized' HTTP Header Field) to Experimental RFC

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

un-cc'ing IESG and Hybi...

On 13.12.2010 15:08, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> [To HYBI list members: I am sending the copy of the letter to your list
> following the advice of L. Wood (see below).]
>
> L. Wood, the reference you have mentioned does not seem to concern ti
> Content-* headers. Moreover, HTTP clients are not able to generate
> answer codes, but only requests. This makes your proposal impossible to
> implement.

"Recipient" as in "the server receiving".

> Secondly, proxies usually do not generate separate requests to HTTP
> servers but only pass them through. So this will not make any problems.

But there are hop-by-hop headers and end-to-end headers.

Also, they *do* generate their own request, for instance to validate an 
etag.

> Best regards,
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>
> 13.12.2010 16:00, [e-mail] wrote:
>> This draft does not discuss the Content-* rule. Content-* headers are
>> special, in that they may not be ignored (section 9.6 of [RFC2616]).
>> Recipients not understanding Content-blah: will generate a "501 (Not
>> Implemented)" error code. That overrides the proposal below, I think.
>>
>> The proposal in the draft doesn't appear to work with proxies, which
>> often may be passing through headers that they themselves don't
>> understand.
>>
>> This draft does not appear to be associated with a working group. I
>> suggest discussing this on the hybi mailing list; it's a little
>> offtopic, but a bunch of http experts do read that list and can offer
>> comments.

I'm sure the Hybi mailing list will be excited.

Pick one of ietf-discuss (we're in LC anyway), apps-discuss, or HTTPbis.

Best regards, Julian