W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: p1: Via and gateways

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:55:59 +1000
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <37AD85F8-D0E1-4B9D-9BF0-99EBE83ADF8D@mnot.net>
To: ietf@ietf.org

On 20/04/2013, at 5:21 PM, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote:
> I don't care about MUST, but I think the Via header can be useful for
> problem determination. A smart content server could also adjust for
> a detected accelerator and/or transcoder ... perhaps by avoiding
> optimizations dependant on a direct connection and byte/byte transfer
> between the client and the server.
> So I'm very much in favor of keeping the Via: header.

Definitely not talking about getting rid of it. The (only, specific) point here is whether a gateway that doesn't add Via to responses should be called non-conformant.

Personally, I think it should be a MUST for proxies, in both directions. However, for a gateway, it either shouldn't be a requirement at all (for responses), or it should be a SHOULD with a get-out clause for reasons of security (along with a note that they'll need to accept responsibility for any issues caused by omitting Via). Still should probable be a MUST for requests from gateways.


Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 20 April 2013 07:56:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:10 UTC