W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 01:33:42 +0200
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Brian McBarron <bpm@google.com>, google-gears-eng@googlegroups.com, Charles Fry <fry@google.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1207438422.11881.77.camel@HenrikLaptop>

lör 2008-04-05 klockan 12:56 +1300 skrev Adrien de Croy:
> just off the top of my head, if you
> (a) can't rely on intermediaries to pass on headers they don't 
> understand (e.g. which you could use to flag a requirement) - even 
> though this is a requirement

This is effectively saying "you can't trust intermediaries".

I would be very surprised if you find a proxy which aims for semantic
transparency and which do not forward unknown headers.

> (b) can't rely on Expects to be processed incorrectly by intermediaries

I would expect any HTTP/1.1 intermediary to process Expect.

> (c) can't rely on intermediaries to pass on methods they don't 
> understand (even though the capability to be able to do this is required 
> in the spec)

I am not aware of a such requirement in the specs, but common sense says
that a semantically transparent proxy should forward extension-methods.

Received on Saturday, 5 April 2008 23:35:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:45 UTC