- From: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 08:59:24 +0300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hi Adrien see in line >>> >>> On this note, I think it would be really useful if there could be >>> some machine-readable way to query a proxy for HTTP-related >>> capabilities. If that were part of 2.0, then failure to respond >>> appropriately to such a query would in itself be an indication of >>> lack of support for 2.0. >>> The client could do this test whenever it became aware of using a >>> new proxy, e.g. before anyone types a URI or clicks a shortcut. that is an interesting! however it would work only and exclusively for explicit proxies, isn't it? a lot of issues are with transparent/intercepting proxies >>> So by the time the first user request is made, the client should >>> know all it needs to know about the proxy. We should at least be >>> able to solve that part of the problem. >> >> You mean "OPTIONS * HTTP/..." ? > > that kind of thing, but need to be more specific about what and how to > advertise things. RFC2616 is fairly vague. E.g. bodies on request or > response aren't specified, but may be specified in extension etc, > otherwise you get to send headers indicating optional features, but > like what? Accept-range, Allow, T-E? > > maybe I need to do some more research for docs describing specific > option advertisements. Is there a list of such specs anywhere? moreover, if it is just for explicit proxies this kind of mechanism would only work with the one configured in the client. However even if the configured proxy supports /2.0 you can not be sure that there is the support all the way long till the server; there can be always another proxy in between the supported proxy and the server that is not 2.0 updated /Sal -- Salvatore Loreto, PhD www.sloreto.com > > Adrien >> >> >> Amos >
Received on Saturday, 27 October 2012 05:59:51 UTC