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

RFC 3143

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:20:31 +0100
Message-ID: <49412FBF.8010705@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Hi,

I was recently pointed to RFC 3143, "Known HTTP Proxy/Caching Problems" 
(<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3143>).

This one is interesting in that it claims to document several problems 
in the HTTP/1.1 *specification*. If these claims are correct, we should 
add the individual points to our issues tracker. If they are not, we 
should file errata against RFC 3143.

 From a quick read, at least two issues look fishy:

1) "2.1.1 Vary header is underspecified and/or misleading" 
(<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3143#section-2.1.1>)

This includes an example using HTTP delta encoding, but *claims* that 
the problem also occurs in simpler cases. I'm not ready to believe that 
claim yet.

2) "2.2.2 Interception proxies prevent introduction of new HTTP methods" 
(<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3143#section-2.2.2>)

This claims:

       A proxy that receives a request with a method unknown to it is
       required to generate an HTTP 501 Error as a response.  HTTP
       methods are designed to be extensible so there may be applications
       deployed with initial support just for the user agent and origin
       server.  An interception proxy that hijacks requests which include
       new methods destined for servers that have implemented those
       methods creates a de-facto firewall where none may be intended.

...without pointing out where RFC 2616 says that.

Feedback appreciated,

Julian
Received on Thursday, 11 December 2008 15:21:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:58 GMT