- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:15:31 +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>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 17/07/2009, at 5:05 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote: >> >> Transparent proxies are still required to insert Via? > > If you mean intercepting, yes (although they're not really kosher, > it's still necessary for them to do this if the various protocol > features that depend upon it are going to function). > I meant the definition in RFC2616 "A "transparent proxy" is a proxy that does not modify the request or response beyond what is required for proxy authentication and identification" But intercepting proxies are another kettle of fish again. I think the para at the start defining proxy states that unless there's wording specifically relating to requirements for transparent or non-transparent proxies, then the wording applies to both. Which then answers my question, since there's no mention of transparent or non-transparent in the clause for Via, one should assume it applies to both, which means a transparent proxy must also insert Via, which then leaves one wondering about the definition of it (unless we consider that Via is a function of identification?) Cheers Adrien -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 07:12:37 UTC