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: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:11:41 +1000
Cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Message-Id: <4E6083D8-AF4A-4093-838B-9DF5CF5486B0@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Looking at the current text, it's pretty self-explanatory; while there  
might be some editorial tweaks that could make it more apparent, the  
motivation really is already there.

Closing with no action; if the editors want to pick it up as editorial  
and tweak for clarity, please do so.



On 17/07/2009, at 4:49 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> In the back of my head, I've actually been thinking it would be  
> useful to note that Via is necessary for operation of some protocol  
> features, which is why there's the option for a minimal Via header,  
> e.g. "1.1 foo".
>
> I say this because I suspect that many implementers just don't  
> realise that it has these uses. Of course, you're not going to  
> dissuade the more paranoid folks from stripping anything that looks  
> like intermediation, but oh well.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On 17/07/2009, at 4:40 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote:
>
>>
>> I think it might have been me that raised this issue a while back
>>
>> I agree it needs to be closed with no action.
>>
>> Taking it out breaks too much stuff.
>>
>> The original query related to customers who have unreasonable ISPs  
>> who don't want customers to run proxies to get more use out of  
>> their link, these customers didn't want there to be anything in  
>> their HTTP requests that would give away the existence of a proxy.
>>
>> I think this case is probably best handled with an option (default  
>> off) to make the proxy "stealthy", which strictly speaking makes it  
>> broken (no outbound Via).  Inbound Via is another matter and  
>> doesn't have any privacy issues.
>>
>> It's probably even less of an issue now with the prevalence of  
>> proxies for other purposes, even running on the local machine (e.g.  
>> some filtering / AV software installs a proxy for localhost).
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Adrien
>>
>>
>> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> On Jul 16, 2009, at 5:13 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm fine closing this with no action; IIRC the previous  
>>>> discussion was leaning towards removing the requirement.
>>>>
>>>> Others?
>>>
>>> There is no way we can remove the requirement without removing
>>> half a dozen other features.  Intermediaries that don't send
>>> Via are broken and will continue to be broken even if the
>>> requirement doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> ....Roy
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
>>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 20 July 2009 03:12:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:08 GMT