W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: Proxy and HTTP protocol versions

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 10:31:29 -0600 (MDT)
To: Sudha Subramanian <ssudhaiyer@hotmail.com>
cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0306071021300.53498@measurement-factory.com>

Sub,

	There are a few questions you need to answer before we can
help you with the design and minimal feature set:

	1. Will your proxy forward all requests to one configured
	   server? Or will it need to look at requested URLs and
	   forward requests to corresponding servers?

	2. Is performance important? Do you want your proxy to cache
	   responses?

	3. Will you proxy do anything other than forwarding messages?
	   That is, why do you need a proxy?

Your answers will determine how much HTTP corners you can cut. If it
turns out that your proxy needs to support HTTP/1.1, then you would
have to handle versions and *Connection headers correctly, among other
things. In that case, I would not recommend just removing
Proxy-Connection; a lot more work needs to be done to survive in a
general HTTP environment (RFC 2616 defines most of what needs to be
implemented in that case).

Alex.

-- 
                            | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
                            | all of the above - PolyBox appliance

On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Sudha Subramanian wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to implement a proxy server. The proxy server does nothing but
> just forwards the request to the destination server.
>
> My question is:
>
> 1. For implementing a proxy as simple as this ( just forward request back
> and forth), do I have to bother myself with the HTTP protocol versions etc.
>
> 2. I understand from a bit of googling  that I should be removing the
> 'Proxy-Connection' from the request header so that we won't have to worry
> about a broken link even if the upstream proxy does not support it. Is there
> anyother field like this that I should deal with ?  Does this apply to both
> HTTP 1.0 as well as HTTP 1.1 ?
>
> Any help or pointers would be of great help.
>
> -Thanks
> Sub
Received on Saturday, 7 June 2003 12:31:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:23 GMT