W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:47:48 +0200
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Andreas Petersson <andreas@sbin.se>, "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110419084748.GA12293@1wt.eu>
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 07:53:33AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <8F735513-6A44-4043-B7DA-EAE1E2FD1A0D@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
> tes:
> >> Forwarded: for=, for=;by=
> >> Forwarded: for=;by=;proto=https
> This format needs a strict definition to be unambigious.
> For instance, if the first proxy adds only "for" and the next adds
> only "by", there is no way to tell if one or two proxies were
> involved.

Yes it's easy, because each subfield is delimited by a semi-colon.
So if you have :

  Forwarded: for=; by=

then those are the same proxy, but if you have :

  Forwarded: for=, by=

then those are two distinct proxies since there are two header values.

> I still think it is a better idea that each proxy adds exactly one
> element, and that the single element contains whatever information
> the proxy is willing to disclose.

This is exactly the case : each proxy adds exactly one element here
(one header value) and it indicates the fields it wants to disclose.

Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 08:48:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:51 UTC