Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy

On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 14:30 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> > ...
> > I am fine with deprecating 305 as "never implemented", moving it's
> > definition to an appendix explaining the differences between 2616 and
> > 2616bis.
> > ...
> 
> :-)
> 
> That's what I was trying to do.
> 
> Do you want to propose concrete text?

I can try, but not sure the result is the best.

Key points to include in priority order if anyone wants to try:

 - Commonly not implemented
 - Not obvious how it was meant to be implemented. Hop-by-hop or
end-to-end?
 - If hop-by-hop then it can't be used for clients using an HTTP/1.0
proxy or HTTP/1.1 proxy not implementing 305.
 - If end-to-end then it can't be used for clients using a proxy as HTTP
has no provision of clients requesting a chained proxy request.
 - Same functionality can almost be emulated using a 302/307 redirect to
another request-URI acting as application level proxy for the resource,
with the only noticeable difference being the request-URI (has mainly
implications on relative references from the resulting resource).

Regards
Henrik