- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 15:48:24 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- cc: 'Mark Nottingham' <mnot@mnot.net>, 'Julian Reschke' <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Brian Smith wrote:
> Yves Lafon wrote:
>> How about:
>> "Implementations might define header matching as the equivalence of
>> their internal representations".
>
> That looks like "Header matching is implementation-defined."
Exactly.
> It makes sense that transparent proxies must use character-by-character
> comparison (no canonicalization). Non-transparent proxies are already free
> to rewrite the "Accept-Encoding" header of requests, so they are free to do
> whatever canonicalization they want (RFC 2616 section 13.5.2), AFAICT. That
> is, a proxy cache that treats "Accept-Encoding: inflate, identity" the same
> as "Accept-Encoding: inflate" is the same as a non-transparent proxy cache
> that rewrites "Accept-Encoding: inflate, identity" to "Accept-Encoding:
> inflate". Such a cache can't claim to be transparent (because it isn't).
Well, most transparent proxies I ran into did not support "TRACE *", so it
is hard to find a truly transparent proxy anyway.
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 19:48:36 UTC