Re: #179: Relax Via MUST

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).


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 -

Mark Nottingham

Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 07:17:56 UTC