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: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:13:34 +1100
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <0A3DCF59-6FA7-4249-BD2E-39B7969A8522@mnot.net>
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>

On 08/12/2011, at 4:30 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> A proxy is responsible for complying with all requirements on senders,
> clients, and proxies.  That is how the entire protocol is written.
> While I understand that some folks may not want to do that, the answer
> is that their software is not compliant with HTTP.  There is no need for
> further exceptions.
> There are many "proxies" that are not HTTP proxies.

So, how is a proxy that receives an invalid Date header supposed to handle it? Re-generate the Date? Does *any* implementation do this?

Likewise for, say, a Cache-Control header where an extension directive doesn't meet the generic ABNF; what should a proxy do? Does any existing implementation actually do it?

If no (or very little) software is compliant with HTTP, that begs the question of whether compliance with HTTP is defined well.

Mark Nottingham
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 23:14:11 UTC

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