> See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008AprJun/0043.html> > (I'd propose to continue the conversation over there).
Done. Thanks for initiating the discussion. > > The HTTP spec does specify that the hop-to-hop decision MUST be made > > at a protocol level > > (<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec8.html#sec8.2.3>). In > > other words, at least in the case of the Expect 100, a 417 is only > > injected by a proxy with a known next-hop 1.0 or lower server. Similar > > behavior with new Expect headers would be just fine in our case. > > > > But that's a special case for "100-continue", which is a MUST level feature > for all HTTP/1.1 components anyway. > > I think it's clear that a proxy that sees "Expect: foobar" will have to > immediately fail with status 417 if it doesn't know what "foobar" means. I guess that's not immediately obvious to me, but per your recommendation I'll go into more details on the other list. Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Charles
