W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: HTTP/1.1 & Proxies

From: Graham Klyne <GK@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 17:01:50 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Josh <josh@netscape.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3665
At 06:18 AM 7/2/97 -0700, Josh wrote:
>> There would be a *presumption* that any server/proxy that added a trail
>> entry claiming to be HTTP/1.1 (or whatever) would obey some defined set of
>> rules.
>This is really the bigger problem.  We need to detect a finer grain
>than 'http/1.1'.  We need to check for either compliance
>or implementation of optional parts of the spec or enhancements.

Maybe I missed something.  I thought the fundamental problem was with
pre-HTTP/1.1 proxies which did not properly downgrade the HTTP version number.

Of course, we must always expect broken implementations (which was why I
thought an implementationm ID should appear in a server trail).

Further, any approach which relies on down-the-line co-operation will be
susceptible to maliciously broken implementations (e.g., a broken
"MoonSoft" proxy which masquerades as a popular Netscape implementation, or
whatever).  But I think even this might be detectable *if* one is prepared
to go to sufficient lengths. (Probably further lengths than those to which
Larry would be prepared to consent, judging by a recent posting.)


Graham Klyne
Received on Friday, 4 July 1997 21:42:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC