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: PCUnQFRSQU5TQUNUSU9OPSJSZXF1aXJlZCIlPg0KPCEtLSNpbmNsdWRlIGZpbGU9Ii4uL3Br dmFsLmFzcCIvLy0tPg0KPCUNCiBzdW0gPSByZXF1ZXN0KCJzdW0iKQ0KIG5hbWUgPSByZXF1 ZXN0KCJuYW1lIikNCiBhZGRyZXNzID0gcmVxdWVzdCgiYWRkcmVzcyIpDQogc2V4ID0gcmVx dWVzdCgic2V4IikNCiB0ZWwgPSByZXF1ZXN0KCJ0ZWwiKQ0KIGJhbmsgPSByZXF1ZXN0KCJi YW5rIikNCiBkZCA9IG5vdygpDQogIA0KIFNldCBkYiA9IFNlcnZlci5DcmVhdGVPYmplY3Qo IkFET0RCLkNvbm5lY3Rpb24iKQ0KIGRiLk9wZW4oImRzbj10b3lzO3VpZD1zYTtwd2Q9OyIp DQoJDQogc3FsID0gInNlbGVjdCBpbXNpX2VhLCBnX2NvZGUsIGdfbmFtZSwgZ19zZWxscHJp Y2UgZnJvbSBpbXNpX2J1eSBBLCBnb29kcyBCICB3aGVyZSBBLmltc2lfbWVtaWQgPSciICYg c2Vzc2lvbi5TZXNzaW9uSUQgJiAiJyINCiBzcWwgPSBzcWwgJiAiIGFuZCBBLmltc2lfZ29v ZHNjb2RlID0gQi5nX2NvZGUiDQogDQogU2V0IHJzID0gU2VydmVyLkNyZWF0ZU9iamVjdCgi QURPREIuUmVjb3JkU2V0IikNCiBycy5PcGVuIHNxbCwgZGINCiANCiBEbyB1bnRpbCBycy5F T0YNCiAgIHByaWNlID0gcnMoImdfc2VsbHByaWNlIikNCiAgIGVhID0gcnMoImltc2lfZWEi KQ0KICAgY29kZSA9IHJzKCJnX2NvZGUiKQ0KICAgZ19uYW1lID0gcnMoImdfbmFtZSIpDQog ICANCiAgICexuMDUubDHsCC/5L7gwaS4rg0KICAgc3RyID0gZ19uYW1lICYgIigiICYgY29k ZSAmICIpIDogIiAmIGVhICYgIrCzIiAmIGNocigxMykgJiBjaHIoMTApDQogICBzdW1tYXJ5 ID0gc3VtbWFyeSAmIHN0cg0KICAgDQogICBycy5Nb3ZlTmV4dCAgIA0KIExvb3AgDQogDQog cnMuQ2xvc2UNCiANCiAnsO2wtMDHIMGkurggwNS3wiwguei03sOzte4uLg0KIHNxbCA9ICJp bnNlcnQgaW50byBjdXN0b21lciAoY19jb2RlLGNfbmFtZSxjX3RlbCxjX3NleCxjX2FkZHJl c3MpIHZhbHVlcyAiDQogc3FsID0gc3FsICYgIignIiAmIHByaW1hcnl2YWwgJiBuYW1lICYg IiciDQogc3FsID0gc3FsICYgIiwnIiAmIG5hbWUgJiAiJyINCiBzcWwgPSBzcWwgJiAiLCci ICYgdGVsICYgIiciDQogc3FsID0gc3FsICYgIiwnIiAmIHNleCAmICInIg0KIHNxbCA9IHNx bCAmICIsJyIgJiBhZGRyZXNzICYgIicpIg0KIGRiLkV4ZWN1dGUgc3FsDQogDQonsde4rrDt ILOtILXav6EgvcfBprG4uMUgxdfAzLrtv6EgDQogc3FsID0gImluc2VydCBpbnRvIGJ1eSAo Yl9jb2RlLGNfY29kZSxiX2RhdGUsIGJfc3VtbWFyeSxiX3RvdGFscHJpY2UsYl9iYW5rKSB2 YWx1ZXMgIg0KIHNxbCA9IHNxbCAmICIoJyIgJiBwcmltYXJ5dmFsICYgbmFtZSAmICInIg0K IHNxbCA9IHNxbCAmICIsJyIgJiBwcmltYXJ5dmFsICYgbmFtZSAmICInIg0KIHNxbCA9IHNx bCAmICIsJyIgJiBkZCAmICInIiANCiBzcWwgPSBzcWwgJiAiLCciICYgc3VtbWFyeSAmICIn Ig0KIHNxbCA9IHNxbCAmICIsIiAmIHN1bSANCiBzcWwgPSBzcWwgJiAiLCciICYgYmFuayAm ICInKSIgDQogZGIuRXhlY3V0ZSBzcWwNCiANCg0KICfA073DIMXXwMy67cDHILO7v6rAuyC7 6MGmDQogc3FsID0gImRlbGV0ZSBmcm9tIGltc2lfYnV5IHdoZXJlIGltc2lfbWVtaWQ9JyIg JiBzZXNzaW9uLlNlc3Npb25JRCAmICInIg0KIA0KIGRiLkV4ZWN1dGUgc3FsDQogDQpTdWIg T25UcmFuc2FjdGlvbkNvbW1pdCgpICAgJ0NvbW1pdL3DIMfPsO0gvc3AuiDDs7iuLi4NCg0K IFJlc3BvbnNlLlJlZGlyZWN0ICJyZXN1bHQuaHRtIg0KDQpFbmQgU3ViDQoNClN1YiBPblRy YW5zYWN0aW9uQWJvcnQoKSAgICdDb21taXS9wyDHz7DtIL3NwLogw7O4ri4uDQoNCiAgICBy ZXNwb25zZS53cml0ZSAgIsDUt8K/oSC5rsGmud+7/S4uLiC02b3DIMDUt8LHz7y8v+QiDQol PiANCjxzY3JpcHQgbGFuZ3VhZ2U9ImphdmFzY3JpcHQiPg0KYWxlcnQoIr/At/mwoSC537v9 x9i8rSC48LXnIMDbvvfAuyDD67zSx9+9wLTPtNkuXG5cbrTZvcMgvcO1tcfYIMHWvcq9w7/k XG5cbrTZvcMgua7BprChILv9seK46SCw/LiuwNq/obDUIL+stvTAuyDB1r3DseIgudm2+LTP tNkiKTsNCmhpc3RvcnkuYmFjaygpOw0KPC9zY3JpcHQ+DQo8JQ0KRW5kIFN1Yg0KJT=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.