- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 10:49:55 +1000
- To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
- Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Lars, > On 25 Aug 2021, at 6:04 pm, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2021-8-25, at 2:05, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >>> Section 2. , paragraph 12, comment: >>>> When adding a value to the Proxy-Status field, intermediaries SHOULD >>>> preserve the existing members of the field, to allow debugging of the >>>> entire chain of intermediaries handling the request. >>> >>> I'm surprised this is not a MUST? Are there any valid reasons for not observing >>> order? >> >> As discussed previously, this is intentional; there are cases where it's desirable to remove it (e.g., when a CDN has several layers of intermediation, and doesn't want to expose internal details to clients). A subsequent edit highlighted this possibility. > > if such a CDN desires to appear as a single hop and edit the Proxy-Status field internally as a request if processed, it can certainly do so without the RFC needing to explicitly allow this? That's one example why it's a SHOULD. Another is when a CDN is configured by one of its customers to remove the header field, so as not to expose the internal intermediary infrastructure of the customer (rather than a CDN). Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2021 00:50:16 UTC