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

Re: #179: Relax Via MUST

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:17:15 +1000
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <238F4780-841E-448B-AD9C-FA623D18A22C@mnot.net>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
There are *no* unique requirements placed upon semantically  
transparent proxies in 2616, which is why they were removed in -05;  
more than anything, they were just a device to explain the motivation  
behind the design decisions in HTTP caching (and IMO it was a fuzzy  
way to do it).

Cheers,


On 17/07/2009, at 5:15 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote:

>
>
> 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
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 07:17:56 GMT

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