- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:11:41 +1000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Looking at the current text, it's pretty self-explanatory; while there might be some editorial tweaks that could make it more apparent, the motivation really is already there. Closing with no action; if the editors want to pick it up as editorial and tweak for clarity, please do so. On 17/07/2009, at 4:49 PM, 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/ > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 20 July 2009 03:12:22 UTC