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

Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:48:48 +0100
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@measurement-factory.com>
Message-ID: <20111129104848.GC6632@1wt.eu>
Hi Adrien,

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:51:34PM +1300, Adrien de Croy wrote:
> I don't see it that way.  If the intermediary owns the TCP connection to 
> the client, it is the emitter.
> HTTP explicitly prohibits sending multiple Content-Length headers.
> Therefore an intermediary must not send more than one.  Regardless of 
> what it receives.

It's not only a matter of whether it owns the TCP connection or not, but
also what it does with it. A basic TCP proxy owns the connections too and
becomes the emitter, still it cannot claim to be an HTTP agent and even
less to be able to fix complex protocol issues.

In my opinion, the difference lies on who produces the contents. If a proxy
builds a complete request from a list of headers, it has no excuse for not
producing them right. If a proxy just buffers TCP payload until it sees a
double CRLF, makes a few checks there and lets them go, we cannot expect it
to fix such issues.

Of course everything is not that black and white but it is easy to spot
some valid uses of every variations and to act responsibly in every case.

Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2011 10:49:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:26 UTC