From ietf-http-wg-request@tux.w3.org Mon Jul 1 02:54:47 2002
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g616skw09489
for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 02:54:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [192.6.10.2])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA14977
for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 02:54:46 -0400
From: mello@chollian.net
Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g616ruYJ004245
for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 07:54:22 +0100 (BST)
Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id HAA05598 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 07:04:26 +0100 (BST)
Received: from deimos.hpl.hp.com (deimos.hpl.hp.com [15.0.48.190])
by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id HAA06118
for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 07:04:24 +0100 (BST)
Received: from re7server.stipanich.com.br ([200.210.154.3])
by deimos.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_24419)/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id XAA24124
for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 23:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 63.159.100.51 ([200.206.234.174]) by re7server.stipanich.com.br with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779);
Sun, 30 Jun 2002 03:03:22 -0300
To:
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 02:05:42 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2002 06:03:23.0401 (UTC) FILETIME=[D7967790:01C21FFB]
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Subject: CHERI Fan Club 9068
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/RE7SERVERkg3nOpj53X0000134c@re7server.stipanich.com.br
To cease future contact
Click here
.  =
; These are REAL people with REAL livecameras and movies!http://www.seymorenudez.com/accounts/1=
91
Why not come take a look for yourself??
From ietf-http-wg-request@tux.w3.org Thu Jul 4 00:05:28 2002
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6445Sw02404
for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 00:05:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp (postfix@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp [133.27.228.201])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA02548
for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 00:05:27 -0400
Received: from wasabi.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp (wasabi.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp [133.27.228.213])
by toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp (Postfix) with SMTP id 8CE6A285
for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:05:26 +0900 (JST)
Received: by wasabi.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:04:49 +0900
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:04:49 +0900
From: Olivier Thereaux
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020704040449.GA2070@w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0
tests=none
version=2.31
X-Spam-Level:
Subject: old archives of this list now online
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/20020704040449.GA2070@w3.mag.keio.ac.jp
Hi,
Just wanted to inform you that "old archives" for this list (from
september 1994 through april 2002) are now online :
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
Regards,
Olivier
--
Olivier Thereaux - W3C
http://www.w3.org/People/olivier | http://yoda.zoy.org
From ietf-http-wg-request@tux.w3.org Thu Jul 4 10:57:21 2002
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g64EvLw27491
for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:57:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [192.6.10.2])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA30097
for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:57:17 -0400
Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g64Ev2V4019230
for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 15:57:02 +0100 (BST)
Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id PAA26479 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 15:57:01 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.8])
by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id PAA10198
for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 15:57:01 +0100 (BST)
Received: from fep03-svc.swip.net (fep03.swip.net [130.244.199.131])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g64EumV4019149
for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 15:56:49 +0100 (BST)
Received: from Jwtzduicy ([193.216.42.73]) by fep03-svc.swip.net with SMTP
id <20020704145432.ERJS23742.fep03-svc.swip.net@Jwtzduicy>
for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:54:32 +0200
From: solve-to
To: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=W58FU291D3g6006I89XB697TQ0558OkZ
Message-Id: <20020704145432.ERJS23742.fep03-svc.swip.net@Jwtzduicy>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:55:03 +0200
X-MailScanner: Found to be infected
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.3 required=5.0
tests=FROM_NAME_NO_SPACES,FREQ_SPAM_PHRASE,
X_RCVD_IN_UNCONFIRMED_DSBL
version=2.31
X-Spam-Level: ***
Subject: A very new website
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/20020704145432.ERJS23742.fep03-svc.swip.net@Jwtzduicy
--W58FU291D3g6006I89XB697TQ0558OkZ
Content-Type: text/html;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Warning: This message ha=
s had one or more attachments removed. Please read the "VirusWarning.txt" a=
ttachment(s) for more information.
Hi,This is a very new website
I expect you would like it.
--W58FU291D3g6006I89XB697TQ0558OkZ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; name="VirusWarning.txt"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="VirusWarning.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed.
Warning: Please read the "VirusWarning.txt" attachment(s) for more informat=
ion.
This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection Service
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The original e-mail attachment "Nyheter"
was believed to be infected by a virus and has been replaced by this warning
message.
If you wish to receive a copy of the *infected* attachment, please
e-mail helpdesk and include the whole of this message
in your request. Alternatively, you can call them, with
the contents of this message to hand when you call.
At Thu Jul 4 15:57:00 2002 the virus scanner said:
>>> Virus 'W32/Klez-H' found in file ./g64EumV4019149/Nyheter
Note to Help Desk: Look on hplb.hpl.hp.com in /var/spool/mailscanner/quaran=
tine (message g64EumV4019149).
--
Postmaster
--W58FU291D3g6006I89XB697TQ0558OkZ
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
name=Nyheter;sz=468x60;ord=983466563140[1].htm
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID:
PGh0bWw+PGJvZHkgYmdjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiI+PGEgdGFyZ2V0PSJfdG9wIiBocmVmPSJo
dHRwOi8vYWQubm8uZG91YmxlY2xpY2submV0L2NsaWNrOzI0OTYwOTY7Mi0wOzA7NTM3ODE4
NjsxLTQ2OHw2MDswfDB8MDs7JTNmaHR0cDovL3d3dy5wc2RhdGEubm8iPjxpbWcgc3JjPSJo
dHRwOi8vYWQubm8uZG91YmxlY2xpY2submV0L3ZpZXdhZC8zNzE1MzgtZGFnZW4yLmdpZiIg
Ym9yZGVyPTAgd2lkdGg9NDY4IGhlaWdodD02MCBhbHQ9IktsaWtrIGhlciEiPjwvYT48L2Jv
ZHk+PC9odG1sPj==
--W58FU291D3g6006I89XB697TQ0558OkZ--
From ietf-http-wg-request@tux.w3.org Tue Jul 9 07:28:54 2002
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g69BSrw07464
for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 07:28:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [192.6.10.2])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA09768
for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 07:28:51 -0400
Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g69BSads001191
for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:28:36 +0100 (BST)
Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id MAA26233 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:28:35 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.8])
by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id MAA16994
for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:28:33 +0100 (BST)
Received: from intersoft.com.hk ([210.0.187.76])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g69BS2ds001112
for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:28:05 +0100 (BST)
Received: from Iochtzndd [211.203.237.182] by intersoft.com.hk
(SMTPD32-7.07) id A8A19F420176; Tue, 09 Jul 2002 19:27:29 +0800
From: masinter
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=UI3Ek6E14aG04o02r7oGj42IL6vl0CI9G
Message-Id: <200207091927533.SM04620@Iochtzndd>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:28:06 +0800
X-MailScanner: Found to be infected
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.5 required=5.0
tests=FROM_NAME_NO_SPACES,SMTPD_IN_RCVD,RCVD_IN_RFCI
version=2.31
X-Spam-Level: **
Subject: Japanese lass' sexy pictures
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/200207091927533.SM04620@Iochtzndd
--UI3Ek6E14aG04o02r7oGj42IL6vl0CI9G
Content-Type: text/html;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Warning: This message ha=
s had one or more attachments removed. Please read the "VirusWarning.txt" a=
ttachment(s) for more information.
--UI3Ek6E14aG04o02r7oGj42IL6vl0CI9G
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; name="VirusWarning.txt"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="VirusWarning.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed.
Warning: Please read the "VirusWarning.txt" attachment(s) for more informat=
ion.
This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection Service
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The original e-mail attachment "ORDER_OK.scr"
was believed to be infected by a virus and has been replaced by this warning
message.
If you wish to receive a copy of the *infected* attachment, please
e-mail helpdesk and include the whole of this message
in your request. Alternatively, you can call them, with
the contents of this message to hand when you call.
At Tue Jul 9 12:28:32 2002 the virus scanner said:
>>> Virus 'W32/Klez-H' found in file ./g69BS2ds001112/ORDER_OK.scr
Note to Help Desk: Look on hplb.hpl.hp.com in /var/spool/mailscanner/quaran=
tine (message g69BS2ds001112).
--
Postmaster
--UI3Ek6E14aG04o02r7oGj42IL6vl0CI9G
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
name=ORDER_OK.ASP
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: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=9
--UI3Ek6E14aG04o02r7oGj42IL6vl0CI9G--
From ietf-http-wg-request@tux.w3.org Wed Jul 10 16:04:13 2002
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6AK4Dw16947
for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:04:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17963
for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:04:12 -0400
Received: from manyfish.co.uk ([62.253.142.7]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
id <20020710200411.OFVA19225.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@manyfish.co.uk>
for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:04:11 +0100
Received: (from joe@localhost)
by manyfish.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6AK4Au04975
for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:04:10 +0100
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:04:09 +0100
From: Joe Orton
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020710210409.A4921@light.plus.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0
tests=SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK,RCVD_IN_MULTIHOP_DSBL,
X_RCVD_IN_UNCONFIRMED_DSBL,FUDGE_MULTIHOP_RELAY
version=2.31
X-Spam-Level:
Subject: HTTP/1.1 response with no headers?
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/20020710210409.A4921@light.plus.com
Just curious - if a client receives the response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
should it be treated as a response with no message body, or a message
body delimited by an EOF?
Mozilla seems to opt for the latter; as far as I could work out from
2616 the former is correct - a request may or may not include a message
body... the presence of a message body is signalled by a
Transfer-Encoding or Content-Length header (or implicit for HEAD, 204,
304 etc)... so no T-E or C-L implies no message body.
joe
From ietf-http-wg-request@tux.w3.org Thu Jul 11 08:04:58 2002
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6BC4vw14581
for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:04:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [192.6.10.2])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17857
for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:04:57 -0400
Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g6BC4tds017709
for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:04:55 +0100 (BST)
Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id NAA19455 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:04:54 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.8])
by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id NAA26111
for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:04:53 +0100 (BST)
Received: from tarantula.inria.fr (daemon@[138.96.10.3])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g6BC3pds017645
for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:03:52 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from ylafon@localhost)
by tarantula.inria.fr (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6BC0AJ11356;
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:00:10 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Received: from sophia.inria.fr (sophia.inria.fr [138.96.64.20])
by tarantula.inria.fr (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6BA8QR10076
for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:08:26 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by sophia.inria.fr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6BA8Qv0015383
for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:08:26 +0200
X-Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [18.29.1.71])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA30501
for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:08:25 -0400
X-Received: (from lists@localhost)
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id g6BA8Px04141
for ylafon@w3.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:08:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:08:25 -0400 (EDT)
X-Envelope-From: ietf-http-wg-request@tux.w3.org Thu Jul 11 06:08:19 2002
X-Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6BA8Jw04116
for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:08:19 -0400 (EDT)
X-Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [192.6.10.2])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA30480
for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:08:18 -0400
X-Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g6BA8Eds007390
for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:08:14 +0100 (BST)
X-Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id LAA18207 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:08:13 +0100 (BST)
X-Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.8])
by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id LAA19695
for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:08:12 +0100 (BST)
X-Received: from n3.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n3.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.86])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with SMTP id g6BA7fds007347
for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:07:43 +0100 (BST)
X-eGroups-Return: chiheb_jabeur@yahoo.fr
X-Received: from [66.218.67.137] by n3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2002 10:06:21 -0000
Old-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:06:18 -0000
From: "chiheb_jabeur"
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-ID:
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 62.161.61.19
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored
X-Envelope-To: ietf-http-wg
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.1 required=5.0
tests=FROM_NAME_NO_SPACES
version=2.31
ReSent-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:00:09 +0200 (MET DST)
ReSent-From: Yves Lafon
ReSent-To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
ReSent-Subject: [Moderator Action] overhead HTTP, HTTPS...
ReSent-Message-ID:
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Subject: overhead HTTP, HTTPS...
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/agjlaq+b8a5@eGroups.com
I wanna know something about this subject please...
it's a fix rate, or it's variable??
think you.
From ietf-http-wg-request@tux.w3.org Thu Jul 11 11:55:28 2002
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6BFtRw21731
for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:55:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from measurement-factory.com (measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.5])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19123
for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:55:27 -0400
Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by measurement-factory.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6BFtO4S013248;
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:55:24 -0600 (MDT)
(envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com)
Received: (from rousskov@localhost)
by measurement-factory.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6BFtNah013247;
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:55:23 -0600 (MDT)
(envelope-from rousskov)
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:55:23 -0600 (MDT)
From: Alex Rousskov
To: Joe Orton
cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <20020710210409.A4921@light.plus.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK,NO_MX_FOR_FROM
version=2.31
X-Spam-Level:
Subject: Re: HTTP/1.1 response with no headers?
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.BSF.4.10.10207110937290.11780-100000@measurement-factory.com
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Joe Orton wrote:
> Just curious - if a client receives the response:
>
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>
>
> should it be treated as a response with no message body, or a message
> body delimited by an EOF?
IMO, RFC 2616 explicitly says that the above response body is
determined by the server closing the connection (EOF), provided this
response is for a request method that implies entity (message body)
presence (see 10.2.1 200 OK). A message body may be of zero length, of
course:
4.4 Message Length
The transfer-length of a message is the length of the message-body as
it appears in the message; that is, after any transfer-codings have
been applied. When a message-body is included with a message, the
transfer-length of that body is determined by one of the following
(in order of precedence):
1.Any response message which "MUST NOT" include a message-body
[ does not apply ]
2.If a Transfer-Encoding header field (section 14.41) is present
[ does not apply ]
3.If a Content-Length header field (section 14.13) is present,
[ does not apply ]
4.If the message uses the media type "multipart/byteranges",
[ does not apply ]
5.By the server closing the connection. (Closing the connection
cannot be used to indicate the end of a request body, since that
would leave no possibility for the server to send back a response.)
[ applies! ]
If this is a response for, say, HEAD request, then (1) above applies.
> Mozilla seems to opt for the latter; as far as I could work out from
> 2616 the former is correct - a request may or may not include a message
> body... the presence of a message body is signalled by a
> Transfer-Encoding or Content-Length header (or implicit for HEAD, 204,
> 304 etc)... so no T-E or C-L implies no message body.
Not sure what you are saying here, but no T-E or C-L does not imply no
message body. The above headers are from a response, not from a
request.
For requests, it looks like RFC 2616 implies that a request for which
items 1-4 do not apply is invalid. This is natural not only because
there is no way for the server to respond if EOF is detected (there
may be a way if half-closed or non-TCP connections are considered),
but because it is a bad idea for the server to act on a possibly
truncated request. For example, a POST depositing "$10000" may result
in a "$10" deposit...
$0.02,
Alex.
From ietf-http-wg-request@tux.w3.org Fri Jul 12 09:44:32 2002
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6CDiWw00745
for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:44:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24674
for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:44:31 -0400
Received: from manyfish.co.uk ([62.253.142.7]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
id <20020712134430.FKBZ23840.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@manyfish.co.uk>;
Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:44:30 +0100
Received: (from joe@localhost)
by manyfish.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6CDiU521725;
Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:44:30 +0100
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:44:30 +0100
From: Joe Orton
To: Alex Rousskov
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020712144429.A21721@light.plus.com>
References: <20020710210409.A4921@light.plus.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: ; from rousskov@measurement-factory.com on Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 09:55:23AM -0600
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK
version=2.31
X-Spam-Level:
Subject: Re: HTTP/1.1 response with no headers?
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/20020712144429.A21721@light.plus.com
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 09:55:23AM -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Joe Orton wrote:
...
> > Mozilla seems to opt for the latter; as far as I could work out from
> > 2616 the former is correct - a request may or may not include a message
> > body... the presence of a message body is signalled by a
> > Transfer-Encoding or Content-Length header (or implicit for HEAD, 204,
> > 304 etc)... so no T-E or C-L implies no message body.
>
> Not sure what you are saying here, but no T-E or C-L does not imply no
> message body. The above headers are from a response, not from a
> request.
Ah, yes: I missed that the sentence talking about messages with no
bodies was specific to requests. That all makes perfect sense now -
thanks.
joe
From ietf-http-wg-request@tux.w3.org Thu Jul 18 17:10:55 2002
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6ILAt707116
for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 17:10:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11831
for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 17:10:54 -0400
Received: from manyfish.co.uk ([62.253.142.7]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
id <20020718211040.CPEN4119.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@manyfish.co.uk>
for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:10:40 +0100
Received: (from joe@localhost)
by manyfish.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6ILAdX15030
for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:10:39 +0100
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:10:39 +0100
From: Joe Orton
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020718221039.A14570@light.plus.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0
tests=none
version=2.31
X-Spam-Level:
Subject: Request-URI for CONNECT
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/20020718221039.A14570@light.plus.com
Is the :port segment intended to be optional in the request-URI used in
a CONNECT request? The text in RFC 2817 implies it is always used, but
it is actually optional in an 'authority' segment according to RFC 2396.
(I tried a couple of proxies and they behave differently if the :port is
ommitted: Traffic-Server assumes port 80, Squid assumes 443)
Regards,
joe
From ietf-http-wg-request@tux.w3.org Fri Jul 19 09:36:53 2002
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6JDar713819
for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 09:36:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtp4.covad.net (psmtp4.array3.laserlink.net [63.65.123.54])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18987
for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 09:36:52 -0400
Received: from study (h-64-105-110-16.CMBRMAOR.covad.net [64.105.110.16])
by smtp4.covad.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA03686;
Fri, 19 Jul 2002 09:36:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Lawrence
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Joe Orton
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 09:34:30 -0400
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Organization: The Internet Illuminati
In-Reply-To: <20020718221039.A14570@light.plus.com>
Message-Id:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: Opera 6.04 build 1135
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,RCVD_IN_MULTIHOP_DSBL,X_RCVD_IN_UNCONFIRMED_DSBL,
FUDGE_MULTIHOP_RELAY
version=2.31
X-Spam-Level:
Subject: Re: Request-URI for CONNECT
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/SQQKKJDA42RLF0KI432VIDB0E0KGHF4.3d381566@study
7/18/2002 5:10:39 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
>Is the :port segment intended to be optional in the request-URI used in
>a CONNECT request? The text in RFC 2817 implies it is always used, but
>it is actually optional in an 'authority' segment according to RFC 2396.
As you point out, it isn't a good idea for the client to treat it as optional.
Formally, I don't think that it would be a good idea for the proxy to treat it
as optional either, but for backward compatibility with older clients, one
might choose to do so.
When we incorporated the specification of CONNECT from the original Netscape I-
D into what became 2817, our intent was explicitly to specify it as a general
(not SSL-specific) mechanism. In that context, making the port specification
optional makes little sense.
>(I tried a couple of proxies and they behave differently if the :port is
>ommitted: Traffic-Server assumes port 80, Squid assumes 443)
Most seem to assume 443; I've also run into some that connect to 443 regardless
of what is specified.
Since each scheme also implies a default port, I would treat that as
authoritative (if the CONNECT request-uri is 'http:', then 80, if it's
'https:', then 443).
From ietf-http-wg-request@tux.w3.org Sat Jul 27 03:40:23 2002
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6R7eN716429
for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:40:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [192.6.10.2])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA21947
for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:40:21 -0400
Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g6R7dqN7023365
for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:39:52 +0100 (BST)
Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id IAA04552 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:39:51 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.8])
by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id IAA10549
for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:39:50 +0100 (BST)
Received: from tarantula.inria.fr (daemon@[138.96.10.3])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g6R7dZN7023349
for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:39:36 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from ylafon@localhost)
by tarantula.inria.fr (8.12.5/8.12.5) id g6R7Ztw7004656;
Sat, 27 Jul 2002 09:35:55 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Received: from sophia.inria.fr (sophia.inria.fr [138.96.64.20])
by tarantula.inria.fr (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6R5HcAj003196
for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 07:17:38 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by sophia.inria.fr (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6R5HcC6000950
for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 07:17:38 +0200
X-Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [18.29.1.71])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07220
for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 01:17:37 -0400
X-Received: (from lists@localhost)
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id g6R5Hb607128
for ylafon@w3.org; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 01:17:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 01:17:37 -0400 (EDT)
X-Envelope-From: ietf-http-wg-request@tux.w3.org Sat Jul 27 01:17:34 2002
X-Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6R5HY707103
for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 01:17:34 -0400 (EDT)
X-Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [192.6.10.2])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07217
for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 01:17:33 -0400
X-Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g6R5HTN7016688
for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 06:17:30 +0100 (BST)
X-Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id GAA03683 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 06:17:29 +0100 (BST)
X-Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.8])
by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id GAA07146
for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 06:17:28 +0100 (BST)
X-Received: from n20.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n20.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.76])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with SMTP id g6R5H7N7016640
for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 06:17:09 +0100 (BST)
X-eGroups-Return: rajmahendrah@yahoo.co.in
X-Received: from [66.218.67.129] by n20.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Jul 2002 05:15:46 -0000
Old-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 05:15:44 -0000
From: "rajmahendrah"
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-ID:
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 203.200.145.2
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored
X-Envelope-To: ietf-http-wg
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.1 required=5.0
tests=FROM_NAME_NO_SPACES
version=2.31
ReSent-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 09:35:48 +0200 (MET DST)
ReSent-From: Yves Lafon
ReSent-To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
ReSent-Subject: [Moderator Action] HTTP headers
ReSent-Message-ID:
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Subject: HTTP headers
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/ahtaa0+pqfa@eGroups.com
hello,
How can we get new HTTP headers created?
Does such headers created, turn out to be vendor specific, to be used
only by the vendors who registers it?
Or once regsitered, any one can use it?
And what are extended headers?
Any info or pointers will be greatly appreciated
TIA
raj
From ietf-http-wg-request@tux.w3.org Sun Jul 28 23:54:56 2002
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6T3st716530
for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:54:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [192.6.10.2])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA05695
for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:54:55 -0400
Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g6T3sQN7027271
for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 04:54:26 +0100 (BST)
Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id EAA27241 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 04:54:25 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.8])
by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id EAA17182
for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 04:54:24 +0100 (BST)
Received: from mail.mnot.net ([67.118.125.66])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g6T3sBN7027259
for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 04:54:13 +0100 (BST)
Received: from mnotlaptop (unknown [63.96.164.165])
(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by mail.mnot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 38D3572D9; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 20:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <00cc01c236b3$25a659a0$9e0ba8c0@mnotlaptop>
From: "Mark Nottingham"
To: "rajmahendrah" ,
References:
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 20:50:56 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0
tests=TO_LOCALPART_EQ_REAL
version=2.31
X-Spam-Level:
Subject: Re: HTTP headers
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/00cc01c236b3$25a659a0$9e0ba8c0@mnotlaptop
Currently, there is no official way to register HTTP header field-names.
However, you may be interested in [1] a proposal on how such a registry
would be run.
Regards,
1. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klyne-msghdr-registry-05.txt
----- Original Message -----
From: "rajmahendrah"
To:
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 10:17 PM
Subject: HTTP headers
>
>
>
>
> hello,
>
> How can we get new HTTP headers created?
> Does such headers created, turn out to be vendor specific, to be used
> only by the vendors who registers it?
> Or once regsitered, any one can use it?
>
> And what are extended headers?
>
> Any info or pointers will be greatly appreciated
>
> TIA
> raj
>
From ietf-http-wg-request@tux.w3.org Mon Jul 29 20:26:39 2002
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6U0Qc725504
for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:26:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [192.6.10.2])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09009
for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:26:38 -0400
Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g6U0QaOx000752
for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:26:36 +0100 (BST)
Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id BAA17957 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:26:35 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.8])
by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id BAA06159
for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:26:34 +0100 (BST)
Received: from tarantula.inria.fr (daemon@[138.96.10.3])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g6U0OTOx000617
for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:24:31 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from ylafon@localhost)
by tarantula.inria.fr (8.12.5/8.12.5) id g6U0KluC018577;
Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:20:47 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Received: from sophia.inria.fr (sophia.inria.fr [138.96.64.20])
by tarantula.inria.fr (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6T6EkAj005541
for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:14:46 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by sophia.inria.fr (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6T6EjC6006998
for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:14:45 +0200
X-Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [18.29.1.71])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA21073
for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 02:14:45 -0400
X-Received: (from lists@localhost)
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id g6T6EiP24705
for ylafon@w3.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 02:14:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 02:14:45 -0400 (EDT)
X-Envelope-From: ietf-http-wg-request@tux.w3.org Mon Jul 29 02:14:42 2002
X-Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6T6Eg724680
for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 02:14:42 -0400 (EDT)
X-Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [192.6.10.2])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA21070
for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 02:14:41 -0400
X-Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g6T6ECN7004600
for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:14:12 +0100 (BST)
X-Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id HAA08576 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:14:11 +0100 (BST)
X-Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.8])
by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id HAA22453
for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:14:11 +0100 (BST)
X-Received: from web8101.in.yahoo.com ([203.199.70.28])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with SMTP id g6T6DlN7004583
for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:13:49 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <20020729061238.31991.qmail@web8101.in.yahoo.com>
X-Received: from [203.200.145.2] by web8101.mail.in.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:12:38 BST
Old-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:12:38 +0100 (BST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?rajmahendra=20Hedge?=
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
In-Reply-To: <00cc01c236b3$25a659a0$9e0ba8c0@mnotlaptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored
X-Envelope-To: ietf-http-wg
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.4 required=5.0
tests=IN_REP_TO
version=2.31
ReSent-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:20:41 +0200 (MET DST)
ReSent-From: Yves Lafon
ReSent-To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
ReSent-Subject: [Moderator Action] Re: HTTP headers
ReSent-Message-ID:
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Subject: Re: HTTP headers
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/20020729061238.31991.qmail@web8101.in.yahoo.com
hi,
Thanks a lot for the reply.
I am new to HTTP headers and its issues. I have one
more doubt.
I need to define a new HTTP header for communciation
between my Server application, and other client
application which connect to my Server application.
If there is no official way to register HTTP header
names, is it enough that I decide on the header name,
and its value, etc? And let know my client
applications about this new header through
documentation?
I need not register it anywhere now, isn't it?
And if the proposed registry is up, probably I can get
it registered there.
Is this the way to do it?
Thanks once again for your time.
Best Regards,
Raj,
--- Mark Nottingham wrote: >
Currently, there is no official way to register HTTP
> header field-names.
> However, you may be interested in [1] a proposal on
> how such a registry
> would be run.
>
> Regards,
>
> 1.
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klyne-msghdr-registry-05.txt
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!!
visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com
From ietf-http-wg-request@tux.w3.org Mon Jul 29 20:40:26 2002
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6U0eQ725892
for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:40:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [192.6.10.2])
by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA10724
for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:40:25 -0400
Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g6U0duOx001391
for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:39:56 +0100 (BST)
Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id BAA18016 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:39:56 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.8])
by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id BAA06497
for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:39:54 +0100 (BST)
Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5])
by hplb.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/HP Labs Bristol relay) with ESMTP id g6U0dPOx001380
for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:39:26 +0100 (BST)
Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by measurement-factory.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6U0c94S012913;
Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:38:09 -0600 (MDT)
(envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com)
Received: (from rousskov@localhost)
by measurement-factory.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6U0c9Bp012912;
Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:38:09 -0600 (MDT)
(envelope-from rousskov)
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:38:09 -0600 (MDT)
From: Alex Rousskov
To: =?iso-8859-1?q?rajmahendra=20Hedge?=
cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
In-Reply-To: <20020729061238.31991.qmail@web8101.in.yahoo.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,NO_MX_FOR_FROM
version=2.31
X-Spam-Level:
Subject: Re: HTTP headers
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.BSF.4.10.10207291830410.98811-100000@measurement-factory.com
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, [iso-8859-1] rajmahendra Hedge wrote:
> I need to define a new HTTP header for communciation between my
> Server application, and other client application which connect to
> my Server application. If there is no official way to register
> HTTP header names, is it enough that I decide on the header name,
> and its value, etc? And let know my client applications about this
> new header through documentation?
Yes. You may want to name your header field starting with "X-" to
avoid possible but unlikely collisions with [future] "official" header
field names and to follow a tradition. For example:
X-Rajmahendra: foo=bar
You probably want to keep the value syntax simple so that
intermediaries do not have trouble parsing or forwarding the values.
If possible, avoid things like quoted strings with special delimiters
inside, etc.
If you header has a hop-by-hop semantics (see RFC 2616), you must list
it in the Connection: header field.
> I need not register it anywhere now, isn't it?
You do not need to register it.
HTH,
Alex.