W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 14:26:46 +0200
Message-ID: <53A81D06.4000301@gmx.de>
To: Michael Piatek <piatek@google.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-06-20 23:52, Michael Piatek wrote:
> Yup, Content-Encoding is protected. (I'm looking at the list in 2616
> sec 13.5.2). I see that the proxy is gzipping text no-transform
> responses. Thanks.

Note that RFC 2616 is obsolete, and that section doesn't even exist in 
the new specs anymore (see 
<https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/60> for context).

> Are you aware of any sites that break given this behavior? Often,
> misconfigured origins simply mark all responses as no-transform, and
> it would be unfortunate to lose the compression benefits of gzip given
> that it's typically benign.
> ...

I would argue that "punishing" people who set no-transform when they 
don't nee do is an incentive for them to check what they're doing. As a 
matter of fact, it's not up to the proxy to try to determine whether 
no-transform was sent due to incorrect configuration or stupidity.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 12:27:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC