Subject: CONNECT

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:18:54 +0200

Hi,

it seems to me that in Part2, Section 8.9:

"8.9 CONNECT

This specification reserves the method name CONNECT for use with a proxy 
that can dynamically switch to being a tunnel (e.g. SSL tunneling 
[Luo1998])." -- 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-latest.html#CONNECT>

we really should refer to RFC2817.

Or am I missing something subtle here?

BR, Julian

---

From: Henrik Nordstrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:25:57 +0200

> we really should refer to RFC2817.

Yes.

> Or am I missing something subtle here?

No.

RFC2817 didn't exist at the time RFC2068 or RFC2616 was written. At the
time CONNECT was only specified by the Netscape informal specifications.

And the world still plays by the Netscape specifications, not RFC2817.
But the differences regarding CONNECT is only in intent of the method,
not functional specification so it doesn't really matter.

Regards
Henrik

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:19:20 +0200

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> ...

Good thing we have an issue tracker, which just reminded me that I 
looked at that just one month ago: 
<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/119>. So much for my 
memory :-)

BR, Julian