httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: About Interim Response Headers (was: Content-Length header for 1xx status codes)
Date Thu, 08 Dec 2016 02:12:32 GMT
On Dec 7, 2016 6:23 PM, "Jacob Champion" <champion.p@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/07/2016 04:00 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:

> Consider for a moment the case of an HTTP/1.1 upgrade request
> unrecognized by a proxy agent.
>

It was my understanding that this is an impossible situation for a
conforming proxy, since Upgrade is hop-by-hop. What am I missing?


The fact that there is no way for us to predict what new headers we are
passed in the future are defined in the future to be hop-by-hop, which
result in a 105 response code with a similarly imponderable conundrum. No
way for RFC2068 servers to know 101 became a hop by hop unhandleable
response.

Mime
View raw message