httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: About Interim Response Headers (was: Content-Length header for 1xx status codes)
Date Thu, 08 Dec 2016 10:25:26 GMT
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:12 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> 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.

"Connection: Upgrade, ..." is a MUST when the Upgrade header is used,
so servers/proxies do know.

Mime
View raw message