Re: Quick feedback on draft-nottingham-web-proxy-desc-00

On 2014-10-02 18:20, Smith, Kevin, (R&D) Vodafone Group wrote:
>>> Rightfully. This is what RFC 7230 already requires.
>
> Why rightfully, though? The example given has merit, and could make the difference between a functional user experience, and not.
>
> Ideally the content server would be providing a response that was suitable for the delivery context, in which case no-transform should indeed be ignored, but that's not always the case in practice. Hence the point about allowing the user to choose.
>

The HTTP spec is the basis here, and it says what it says. No new spec 
that doesn't update/obsolete the base spec can change that.

Are you proposing a change to the base spec?

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 2 October 2014 17:58:21 UTC