- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:05:19 +1200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
yes, I think many specific-application proxies don't put Via in, probably for that reason. in fact I think many proxies also mirror the HTTP version they received in the request through to the next hop. Transparent proxies are still required to insert Via? Mark Nottingham wrote: > In the back of my head, I've actually been thinking it would be useful > to note that Via is necessary for operation of some protocol features, > which is why there's the option for a minimal Via header, e.g. "1.1 foo". > > I say this because I suspect that many implementers just don't realise > that it has these uses. Of course, you're not going to dissuade the > more paranoid folks from stripping anything that looks like > intermediation, but oh well. > > Cheers, > > > On 17/07/2009, at 4:40 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote: > >> >> I think it might have been me that raised this issue a while back >> >> I agree it needs to be closed with no action. >> >> Taking it out breaks too much stuff. >> >> The original query related to customers who have unreasonable ISPs >> who don't want customers to run proxies to get more use out of their >> link, these customers didn't want there to be anything in their HTTP >> requests that would give away the existence of a proxy. >> >> I think this case is probably best handled with an option (default >> off) to make the proxy "stealthy", which strictly speaking makes it >> broken (no outbound Via). Inbound Via is another matter and doesn't >> have any privacy issues. >> >> It's probably even less of an issue now with the prevalence of >> proxies for other purposes, even running on the local machine (e.g. >> some filtering / AV software installs a proxy for localhost). >> >> Thanks >> >> Adrien >> >> >> Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>> On Jul 16, 2009, at 5:13 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> >>>> I'm fine closing this with no action; IIRC the previous discussion >>>> was leaning towards removing the requirement. >>>> >>>> Others? >>> >>> There is no way we can remove the requirement without removing >>> half a dozen other features. Intermediaries that don't send >>> Via are broken and will continue to be broken even if the >>> requirement doesn't exist. >>> >>> ....Roy >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com >> > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 07:02:26 UTC