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: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:55:56 +1300
Message-ID: <4ED4BA3C.6030208@qbik.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
CC: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@measurement-factory.com>

I can understand why someone would code some software that way, but I 
don't think it's correct to call that a proxy.  At least it's not HTTP 

It could be argued that strategy of proxy operation is simply not valid.



On 29/11/2011 11:48 p.m., Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 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.
> Regards,
> Willy

Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2011 10:56:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:54 UTC