On 18/08/2014 8:39 p.m., Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> No answer to my question at all so far? Perhaps it's the wrong list?
> Any feedback would be appreciated!
There is no longer an implicit list of hop-by-hop headers.
If you are sending any header your proxy needs to comply with the sender
criteria for that header. The headers pointed out by RFC2616 are all
defined with a MUST on being added to Connection: header explicitly, or
were actually having hopX-to-hopY behaviour where X and Y may have any
number of intermediary hops between them.
You are free to code a default list from the header definitions in your
application. But its just a convenience to fix incorrect input (missing
Connection: entries).
Amos
>
> Thank you!
>
> Martijn
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com> wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> [I hope this question reaches the right mailing list]
>>
>> I'm trying to find the equivalent of RFC 2616, section 13.5.1 in the
>> new specs. This section defines those header fields considered
>> hop-by-hop, i.e.:
>>
>> - Connection
>> - Keep-Alive
>> - Proxy-Authenticate
>> - Proxy-Authorization
>> - TE
>> - Trailers
>> - Transfer-Encoding
>> - Upgrade
>>
>> I need such a list in order to implement a Python WSGI-based proxy.
>> See PEP 3333:
>>
>> Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 05:38:16 UTC