- From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:50:30 +0100
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On 8 Aug 2016, at 20:45, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> wrote: > > On 08/06/2016 10:33 AM, Cory Benfield wrote: > >> This was discussed, but was discarded in part because many proxies do not respect that header. > > I do not understand that reasoning: Surely those proxies that add > support for the new feature (debugging URI) can be required to support > Max-Forwards, at least in the context of that feature. Is it really > better to add Max-Forwards-2 or require response body adaptations? The problem is not those proxies that add support for the feature: the problem is those that *don’t*. For those that don’t add support, they blindly forward the request on, running the risk of information leakage and invalid/incorrect responses.
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2016 09:51:03 UTC