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


From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 21:34:35 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199707081934.VAA26618@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: dwm@xpasc.com
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, dmk@bell-labs.com, frystyk@w3.org, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3691
David W. Morris:
>I guess you wouldn't want a creative proxy which would re-write
>BASIC authentication into digest authentication either?

I don't want proxies to be `creative'.  I think that HTTP/1.x should
not allow creative proxies, and am against weakening MUSTs to allow
such creativity.

If you want a new creative service in a proxy, call it a HTTP/1.1
proxy which implements the `creative-authentication-rewrite' protocol
extension on top of HTTP/1.1.  The use of creative extensions can be
negotiated either in-band or out-of-band.

>  Renaming
>a program to be a user-agent or client because it doesn't follow an
>arbitrary rule doesn't accomplish anything in terms of trust, etc.

Protocol specifications do not have a concept of `arbitrary rules'
which can be ignored without losing conformance.

This is all about the allocation of blame.  If you put up a proxy, for
which you claim that it is a pure 1.1 implementation, while the thing
actually ignores some `arbitrary rules', and things go wrong because a
user acted on your claim of this being a pure 1.1 proxy, then some of
the blame will be allocated at your end.

Received on Tuesday, 8 July 1997 12:37:42 UTC

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