- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 23:02:29 +0000
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <CAP+FsNcxaLmfDcJc_ANzqpN-ja-2mzaOQKYvJ2rmcs_OX0kS7g@mail.gmail.com>, Roberto Peon wri tes: >And what if you're forwarding to another multiplexing proxy, and only then to a server? >Which limit applies to which request? Simple: You always respect the one your peer tells you. Your peer may be a proxy that needs your elephantine Kerberos Cookie but does not forward it to the server. Or it may have a better compression state with the server and be able to squeeze your header-set through. It might even be in cohorts with the server (ie: CDN) and strip out most of the headers that your browser needlessly spits out, before forwarding a much smaller request to the distant server over a thin slow pipe. You almost invariably end up worse by trying to second-guess the proxy. >It gets complicated and unuseful [...] No, it's simple, and I just showed you three valuable use-cases. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 7 July 2014 23:02:52 UTC