W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 09:39:40 -0700
Message-ID: <4EE0E84C.1000306@measurement-factory.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 12/08/2011 08:41 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 08:25:25AM -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> (...)
>> Please note that both approaches will require introduction of new
>> normative vocabulary. AFAICT, we currently do not have any normative
>> language that clearly distinguishes "generation" from "forwarding" in
>> the context of "sending". That has to be fixed regardless of the
>> approach. Otherwise, proxy developers will continue to misinterpret
>> "send" and "sender" rules.
>>
>> I have proposed specific wording for the "global exception for proxies"
>> approach. If there is consensus that the first approach is the way to
>> go, I would be happy to try to reshape that proposal to just introduce
>> the necessary generation/forwarding vocabulary.
> 
> I think that if we carefully define what a "sender" is and what "send"
> means, we can avoid the global exception without rewriting every MUST
> rule, because after all the base of the problem lies there.

A definition of "send" and "sender" that avoids rewriting most sending
rules while allowing proxies to forward some invalid headers is
essentially the same as the global exception.

Alex.
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2011 16:41:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:50 GMT