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

In message <>, Mark Nottingham wri

>In RFC2616, the term you're looking for is "non-transparent proxy"; the 
>current proposal to clarify that is "transforming proxy," since 
>"transparent proxy" has another common use (more correctly, 
>"intercepting proxy").

I don't see how the current text can support a "transforming proxy"
which translates content from english to french, where the
Accept-Language header must be modified.

Trying to make space for this in the spec, will basically amount
to adding "God knows what a transforming proxy might do to this
header."  all over the spec, to nobodys gain.

That is why I propose that we describe "transforming proxys",
(if that is what we want to call them) as a HTTP client and an
HTTP origin server connected by an unspecified processing step.

That way we decouple what headers go in one end from what goes
out the other end in one single place in the spec, rather than
having to repeat over and over the same disclaimer.

I am not trying to ban these kind of devices, I am trying to
describe the accurately and textually efficiently.

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 Friday, 10 June 2011 06:53:15 UTC