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

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

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:02:52 +1200
Message-ID: <47F8213C.3030102@qbik.com>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
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>



Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> 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.
>
>   
me too, which is why I suggested relying on this option.

>> (b) can't rely on Expects to be processed incorrectly by intermediaries
>>     
>
> I would expect any HTTP/1.1 intermediary to process Expect.
>
>   
sure, it's in the spec, but as per the original post on this topic, few 
seem to be compliant in this matter.

>> (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.
>   

capability to be able to, rather than the policy to actually do it. 

> Regards
> Henrik
>
>   

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Sunday, 6 April 2008 01:02:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:46 GMT