- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 19:04:59 +1000
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>, 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 7:00 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 06:49:32PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> 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 > > Agreed. I'm used to see that info almost as commonly as the x-f-f header, > because people who want one generally want the other one too. In haproxy > it's implemented in the x-original-to header. The format above is much > better, but I suspect that some users will already complain that it's > harder to parse for them... Perhaps, but as long as they make a minimal effort and ignore the parameters, it'll be OK. If the draft goes in this direction, it would be good to give some examples so parser authors can make sure they do the right thing. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 09:05:28 UTC