Re: X-Device-xxx header: final name and use?

Sorry if I'm replying to the wrong thread; I didn't see any other discussion
on this.

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Francois Daoust <> wrote:

> Trying to summarize different positions heard before we published the doc
> as First Public Working Draft:
> 1. X-Device-<original header name> is used in practice

FWIW, we're currently sending both X-Device and X-Original from the Google
transcoder since it seemed that both were in use in the wild.  I am keen to
send only one of the two if we can decide :)

> 2. Device is probably not the best name we could think of. X-Received,
> X-Original, in short everything else than "Device" is probably better.

I think X-Original more clearly denotes the actual operation that occurred.

> 3. There could be a potential conflict with existing X- headers used by
> some applications, and we'd rather choose a name that surely is not used
> anywhere else: X-CT-Received for instance. Note that in all cases, we cannot
> "register" the header as it's an experimental one.

Is there any evidence that this header is in use anywhere other than CT

> 4. What is the CT-proxy supposed to do when it receives an X-Device-<some
> header name> HTTP header?

Presumably this would be an indication that transformation has already
occurred and we should consider passing the document unchanged?


Received on Sunday, 1 June 2008 16:48:26 UTC