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.

Received on Thursday, 8 December 2011 16:41:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 1 October 2015 05:36:49 UTC