- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:01:35 +1000
- To: Andreas Petersson <andreas@sbin.se>
- Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I like it. Producing it is easy, and there are less special cases for parsing than the format I suggested. Cheers, On 19/04/2011, at 12:22 AM, Andreas Petersson wrote: > On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:00:15 +0200 > Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> 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... >> >> Willy >> > > What happens if someone wants to send the forwarded-by-information, but > not the forwarded-for-information? > Does that never occur? > There seems to be an X-Forwarded-By in use. Maybe it would be better > to have a header: > > Forwarded: for=5.6.7.8:3456, for=8.9.1.2;by=4.5.6.7 > Forwarded: for=1.2.3.4:5678;by=4.3.2.1:3128;proto=https > > and thereby let all parameters being equal? > > > /Andreas Petersson -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 23:02:06 UTC