- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 18:49:32 +1000
- To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Andreas Petersson <andreas@sbin.se>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 08/04/2011, at 8:31 AM, Thomson, Martin wrote: > On 2011-04-07 at 22:08:49, Karl Dubost wrote: >> Do we have a survey of who does what? >> X-Forwarded-For is used by Opera Mini servers. What about others? > > Some form of standardization of this would be useful for us. We plan to use this for more than just logging. Of course, we'll cope without a formal definition. > > I'll note that adding a new header is nice, but it actually means more work - we still have to process X-Forwarded-For to support all the existing stuff. Is the "X-" so offensive? Is there a reason not to simply specify what everyone does. It's not so much that; it's that there's no interop on the contents of X-Forwarded-For for IPv6 headers (AFAIK), so we should take the opportunity to define a new header that specifies it well. While we're at it, I'd like to see extensibility points added; there are a bunch of bits of per-hop metadata that would be nice to allow in here, instead of defining separate headers. For example, in some use cases it'd be good to identify the receiving address, as well as the sending one. E.g., Forwarded-For: 1.2.3.4:5678; by=4.3.2.1:3128, 5.6.7.8:9012; by=3.2.1.0:80 -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 08:50:02 UTC