- From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:23:11 -0500
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "fielding@gbiv.com" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, "barryleiba@computer.org" <barryleiba@computer.org>, "mnot@mnot.net" <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:16:49PM +0000, Adrien de Croy wrote: > one thing here. > > We're mixing language around servers and proxies. The RFC already does this. The old text says "servers", but clearly it must mean "proxies". I felt uneasy about this. > CONNECT is intended only for a proxy, and in that respect it is Mostly (see the beginning of section 4.3.6). > acting like a server, but we should be consistent, and it would be > more clear to only refer to proxy as the consumer of the CONNECT > request and emitter of the response. Then server can be > unambiguously used to refer to the target of the CONNECT method > processed by the proxy. I agree. > Otherwise it sounds like a proxy is forwarding a CONNECT message to > a server, and the server is generating the response. Nico --
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 22:23:34 UTC