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

Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:41:44 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1206456104.24088.147.camel@HenrikLaptop>

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
 - 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).

Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 14:42:39 UTC

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