Re: This may be a stupid question ...

At 15:26 1998-02-11 -0800, Ari Luotonen wrote:
>Nick Ambrose wrote:
>> We are developing a transparent web proxy, such that a browser does not
>> necessarily know that it is sending requests through a proxy. I have
>> inherited the Web proxy code from a contractor who left. It turns out,
>> that our Proxy only supports HTTP/1.0 and will reject any requests for
>> HTTP/1.1  Looking at the Netscape Proxy server, it seems to have some
>> way of 'downgrading' the Browser to HTTP/1.0 as a stopgap measure.
>> My question: Is there a document / RFC somwhere which explains how we
>> are supposed to do this ?
>> I haven't been able to find anything so far.
>You can't write a transparent HTTP/1.1 proxy.  HTTP/1.1 makes explicit
>provisions for proxies which requires the client to be aware whether or
>not a proxy is in between.


As I see it, if only your transparent proxy returns a HTTP/1.0-response it
downgrade the client correctly. If it totally rejects a request just
because it's HTTP/1.1,
there is probably just some stupid strcmp(lastpartofrequest,"HTTP/1.0")
I've seen that before on some webservers.

On the other hand, I can't see why a transparent HTTP/1.1-proxy would be
I just wrote one myself (transparently proxies socks port 80) and it seems
to work.
It will rather upgrade on both sides to 1.1 than downgrade to 1.0, and IMHO
it works like a charm.
So, I nervously wonder, what paragraph of RFC2068 did I just break, who's
the victim,
and what's the verdict? :)

TIA for comments.



home of JavaMachine, SuperSearch, VikingServer and Robban's Homepage.

Apologies for delayed answers

Received on Thursday, 12 February 1998 23:52:58 UTC