- From: Scott Lawrence <scott-http@skrb.org>
- Date: 01 May 2003 14:03:17 -0400
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> writes: > I have two comments, both from HTTP proxies point of view: > > > 3.3 Acceptance of Upgrade Request > > Server Sends > > 101 Switching Protocols > > Upgrade: TLS/1.0, HTTP/1.1 > > Connection: Upgrade > > Please note that support for forwarding of 1xx responses in proxies is > poor. Upgrade is a hop-by-hop mechanism, so forwarding the 1xx response not only is not required in this case, it would be broken. The RFC has (I think quite detailed) discussion of how to avoid problems with proxies, so long as they fully support CONNECT. > I believe the above are fairly well supported in decent proxies > because they often must handle SSL/TLS tunneling (or terminating) as a > part of the infrastructure. I know that Squid proxy cache, for > example, supports CONNECT requests well. The part I'm most curious about is whether or not they actually use the port number specified in the request. At one point (quite a while ago now), I found that some proxies ignored it and always connected to 443. -- Scott Lawrence Actively seeking work http://skrb.org/scott/ [ <lawrence@world.std.com> is deprecated ]
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 14:13:55 UTC