- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:27:47 +1000
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Makes sense to me. We need to note the change at the end of p1, though, since it's a significant change from 2616. On 30/04/2013, at 5:21 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:04:53PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Well, they're listed as hop-by-hop in 2616, and AFAICT we haven't explicitly >> discussed changing that. > > Maybe because at the time 2616 was written, intermediaries were almost only > proxies. But I agree with Roy here, if I install haproxy to load-balance a > squid farm, the proxy-auth headers are for squid and not for haproxy. So it's > not hop-by-hop, it's for the first explicit proxy in the chain. So I agree > with Roy here. > >> Are you saying that they shouldn't be included in Connection, ever? > > I would personally suggest so. > > Willy > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2013 07:28:15 UTC