Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate?

In message <>, Julian Reschke writes:

>Like this...?
>    An HTTP-to-HTTP proxy is called a "transforming proxy" if it is
>    designed or configured to modify request or response messages in a
>    semantically meaningful way 

One of the important legal principles is that when you act "by
proxy", the proxy is not involved in substance, but merely act as
a trusted relayer of messages.

If the proxy is involved in substance, he is "agent of" or
has "power of attorney".

A good example is the proxy at an art auction, who relays the bids
a non-present bidder communicates via telephone or fax.

I am convinced that John.D.Nobody would be surprised if heard his
proxy bid being "modified in a semantically meaningful way", just
as the poor auction-clerk would be suprised to be forced to pay
for the picture, should John.D.Nobody fail to.

If John.D.Nobody instead sent his good friend to the auction with
a mandate to buy the picture, this friend is not a proxy:  He is
an agent, because he decides when to bid and how much to bid, and
he is personally responsible for paying for the bid he makes.

If your "proxy service" modifies the content, you are not delivering
a "proxy service", but a "translation service", "filtering service",
"ad injection service" or "censorship service", and it should be
treated just like any other service being delivered with the HTTP
protocol:  As a HTTP server.

The fact that some HTTP servers acesses data necessary for their
responses using the HTTP protocol, does not make them proxies.

A "transforming HTTP proxy" is a HTTP server, and we should
not even think about mentioning them.

203 should just be dropped.

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 11:57:44 UTC