- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 11:16:49 +1000
- To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
- Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, "benno@nlnetlabs.nl" <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
Hi Éric, Thanks for the feedback. Responses below. > On 25 Aug 2021, at 9:03 pm, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > Is there any reason why a 'Proxy-Status-Request' (or similar) is not specified ? It would complicate the protocol significantly, because it would have implications for e.g., caching. > -- Section 2 -- > About "Origin servers MUST NOT generate the Proxy-Status field.", while I > understand the reasoning of it, I still wonder how a 'smart gateway' (not a > plain HTTP proxy but more like a content changer, such as mobile optimization > by reducing IMG size, or language translation, or ...) should handle this ? As > it is new content, the 'smart gateway' is the origin but getting info from the > real origin could also be useful. Or is it simply over-complex ? Those would be either gateways or proxies in HTTP terminology, depending on how they're configured -- both classes of intermediaries. > -- Section 2.1.2 -- > Some explanations about the example would be welcome. See: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/19022135 > -- Section 2.3 -- > Should there be an error type for 'too many intermediaries' ? No. There hasn't been any practical need for one. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2021 01:17:11 UTC