- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:17:15 +1000
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
There are *no* unique requirements placed upon semantically transparent proxies in 2616, which is why they were removed in -05; more than anything, they were just a device to explain the motivation behind the design decisions in HTTP caching (and IMO it was a fuzzy way to do it). Cheers, On 17/07/2009, at 5:15 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote: > > > 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 > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 07:17:56 UTC