- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:40:17 +1000
- To: Charles Fry <fry@google.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, google-gears-eng@googlegroups.com
Good question; probably best to ask one of the MF guys (Alex CC'ed). Alex - do you have user-configurable testing now? I've also been thinking about working on an open source HTTP testing framework (not proxy-specific), but that's just an idea and a few bits of random Python at this point... On 10/04/2008, at 10:44 PM, Charles Fry wrote: > Would co-advisor be the right/best way to test what existing proxies > do when they receive an unsolicited 103 response? > > Charles > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com> > wrote: >> See: >> http://coad.measurement-factory.com/ >> >> A representative test is sending a request with >> Expect: 100-continueing >> >> I don't see how you can read it both ways; e.g., >> >> >>> This header field is defined with extensible syntax to allow for >>> future extensions. If a server receives a request containing an >>> Expect field that includes an expectation-extension that it does >>> not >>> support, it MUST respond with a 417 (Expectation Failed) status. >>> >> >> [...] >> >> >>> The Expect mechanism is hop-by-hop: that is, an HTTP/1.1 proxy MUST >>> >>> return a 417 (Expectation Failed) status if it receives a request >>> with an expectation that it cannot meet. However, the Expect >>> request-header itself is end-to-end; it MUST be forwarded if the >>> request is forwarded. >>> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> >> >> On 04/04/2008, at 10:47 AM, Charles Fry wrote: >> >>> Would you mind pointing us to the "related set of tests" which you >>> refer >> to? >>> >>> Also, could you specify just what you imply by passing and failing >>> these tests? Specifically, how is correct proxy behavior defined for >>> unknown Expect requests (I could see arguments either way based on >>> my >>> reading of the HTTP protocol spec)? >>> >>> thanks, >>> Charles >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I've tested a fairly wide variety of proxies with co-advisor; the >>>> only >> one >>>> that passed the related set of tests was very recent builds of >>>> Squid >>>> (2.7DEVEL0). Everything else -- including Squid 2.6STABLE4 -- >>>> failed (it >>>> would take some digging to figure out exactly where this happened, >> unless >>>> Henrik knows; regardless, I think it's safe to say that a very >>>> large >>>> proportion of Squid's installed base fails as well). >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> >>>> On 04/04/2008, at 6:01 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> interesting: >>>>> >>>> >> <http://code.google.com/p/google-gears/wiki/ResumableHttpRequestsProposal >> >. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> In particular: >>>>> >>>>> "Note that section 14.20 of HTTP/1.1 indicates that "an HTTP/1.1 >>>>> proxy >>>>> >>>> MUST return a 417 (Expectation Failed) status if it receives a >>>> request >> with >>>> an expectation that it cannot meet". We expect that fully compliant >> proxies >>>> ignore Expect pragmas which they don't understand (as opposed to >> understand >>>> but cannot meet), but this remains to be verified in the wild." >>>> >>>>> >>>>> So does anybody know that proxies do here? >>>>> >>>>> BR, Julian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.com >> >> >> -- Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 21:41:52 UTC