W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-proxy-explanation-00.txt

From: Thomas Mangin <thomas.mangin@exa-networks.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 10:16:36 +0000
To: hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi
Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "HTTP WG" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "Kari Hurtta" <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Message-ID: <CC54CB6A-C22E-44DC-A9A6-1B68D79D34A5@exa-networks.co.uk>
> any header would pass through towards the origin and then could be 
> used by another non-configured proxy down the line.

clarification: it should read ‘could pass’ and not ‘would pass’.

While section 14.10 of RFC 2616 / 6.1 of RFC 7230 does have a rule for 
header stripping, it may not be correctly implemented by proxies.
To be perfectly honest, I just had a look at my/our own code and we did 
not implement it - patch pending :-(.

However as long as any proxy implementing the draft does follow this 
rule it looks like a good solution.

Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2016 10:17:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 March 2016 12:47:11 UTC