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

Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions

From: Charles Fry <fry@google.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:21:27 -0400
Message-ID: <b549193f0804101721g781e1000r2a928a45e3239b79@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Alex Rousskov" <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, google-gears-eng@googlegroups.com

>  > Alex - do you have user-configurable testing now?
>  Yes, but the focus of that work was not on HTTP. Regardless of whether
>  Co-Advisor scripting works here, I am sure we can hack a few custom test
>  cases in if somebody wants to test a bunch of HTTP proxies for something
>  outside of MUST-level RFC 2616 requirements.

We are primarily interested in testing RFC 2616 MUST-level
requirements, or discovering the results of such tests if they have
already happened. Specifically, section 10.1: "Proxies MUST forward
1xx responses, unless the connection between the proxy and its client
has been closed, or unless the proxy itself requested the generation
of the 1xx response."

So if a server sends an unrequested, unrecognized 1xx response (say
103), how do current proxies respond?

We are interested in HTTP/1.0 proxies in addition to HTTP/1.1 proxies.
Speaking of which, does anybody have any statistics on the relative
distribution of such proxies in the wild?

Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 00:22:36 UTC

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