W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: #179: Relax Via MUST

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:15:31 +1200
Message-ID: <4A602513.3080304@qbik.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>


Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> On 17/07/2009, at 5:05 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote:
>>
>> Transparent proxies are still required to insert Via?
>
> If you mean intercepting, yes (although they're not really kosher, 
> it's still necessary for them to do this if the various protocol 
> features that depend upon it are going to function).
>

I meant the definition in RFC2616

"A "transparent proxy" is a proxy that does not modify the request or 
response beyond what is required for proxy authentication and 
identification"

But intercepting proxies are another kettle of fish again.

I think the para at the start defining proxy states that unless there's 
wording specifically relating to requirements for transparent or 
non-transparent proxies, then the wording applies to both.

Which then answers my question, since there's no mention of transparent 
or non-transparent in the clause for Via, one should assume it applies 
to both, which means a transparent proxy must also insert Via, which 
then leaves one wondering about the definition of it (unless we consider 
that Via is a function of identification?)

Cheers

Adrien


-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 07:12:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:07 GMT