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

Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:32:00 +1000
Cc: "Alex Rousskov" <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, google-gears-eng@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <C39CFECF-253E-40AA-A190-F2D79BF9D8E6@yahoo-inc.com>
To: Charles Fry <fry@google.com>

Very hard to say; people differ widely about the deployment footprint  
of proxies, regardless of version. if you can get your hands on a  
popular Web site's access logs :), you could look at the Via header's  
contents, although some number of proxies will not append it (as  
previously discussed).

I would point out that Squid is by far one of the more popular  
choices, especially in small ISPs, 2nd- and 3rd- world countries,  
etc., and it's still HTTP/1.0 (although 2.7 will have a HTTP/1.1 mode,  
and from the testing I've done, it's pretty conformant).

Cheers,


On 11/04/2008, at 10:21 AM, Charles Fry wrote:
> 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?

--
Mark Nottingham       mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 00:33:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:47 GMT