- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:02:52 +1200
- 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 UTC