W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: Is forwarding hop-by-hop headers a MUST-level violation?

From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0407121432490.988-100000@egate.xpasc.com>


If the proxy implementor can't read and understand the RFC notion of
hop-hop headers, how can you have confidence they'll even look at the
content header and use it to control filtering?

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Alex Rousskov wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>
> > Alex Rousskov wrote:
> > > I do not see a compelling reason to make an exception for
> > > Transfer-Encoding. Do you?
> >
> > Yes.  The reason is similar to making an exception for Connection.
> > Any agent which parses and understands Connection (i.e. to filter out
> > named headers) _must_ also understand and parse Transfer-Encoding, as
> > it determines the message boundary.
>
> Understanding message boundary is often independent of forwarding
> headers. An implementation may have no problem isolating the message,
> but may still forward the Transfer-Encoding hop-by-hop header (which
> may or may not represent encoding for the next hop). Caching proxies
> are especially vulnerable to this because their client-side code is
> often rather different/isolated from the server-side code.
>
> Alex.
>
Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 17:45:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:35 GMT