- 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>
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=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 > > 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=1.2.3.4; by=5.6.7.8 then those are the same proxy, but if you have : Forwarded: for=1.2.3.4, by=5.6.7.8 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. Regards, Willy
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 08:48:55 UTC