Re: Sections 3.3.1 and 5.1

Paul Leach wrote:
> >----------
> >From: 	Ben Laurie[]
> >Subject: 	Re: Sections 3.3.1 and 5.1
> >
> >
> >Proxies are permitted to rewrite internally. I understand the reasoning
> >but
> >it seems to me that this should be a restrictions on URLs (that is,
> >that they
> >are always in their canonical form) rather than on proxies.
> That "permission" is actually ooutside the scope of the spec -- any HTTP
> app is permitted to do anything it wants internally as long as it
> conforms to the requirements of the protocol. That would perhaps be
> clearer if the sentence
> Proxies MAY transform the Request-URI for internal processing purposes,
> but MUST NOT send such a transformed Request-URI  in forwarded requests.
> were moved into the Note: that immediately followed (and the MAY and
> MUST NOT changed to lower case, since MAY doesn't apply to the protocol
> and the MUST NOT is redundant with the proscription on rewriting
> expressed earlier in that section).

Agreed (given the following), except redundancy shouldn't cause case changes.

> You suggestion about requiring canonical form has the right intent, but
> since many existing clients don't send in canonical form, and the
> purpose we were seeking (authentication) only requires that the URLs not
> be modified, it seemed like an unnecesary burden to require canonical
> form.

Surely this is easy; require canonical form in HTTP/1.1 clients and note that
HTTP/1.0- clients don't do it. Then maybe by 2.0 we can insist on canonical



> Paul

Ben Laurie                  Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435
Freelance Consultant and    Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
Technical Director          Email:
A.L. Digital Ltd,           URL:
London, England.

Received on Friday, 31 May 1996 15:47:03 UTC