IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-05 issue: multiple copies of Forwarded vs comma-separated list

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 05 July 2012 04:23 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 261E411E8079 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 21:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.536
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dZ-ppQkt8kOy for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 21:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D1D11E8099 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 21:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbgo11 with SMTP id go11so12298357lbb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Jul 2012 21:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=fCh1h2NeHkSSO2AGuJ5bpIXuWwDWhysniPw1egEtZdc=; b=MpypGh/cAAQVp3uvGtIFqVNfn2lIQ0bYdAiV/W2W4sXMDqQmQhrs0gjG0jbBGX2m7z KovZUgq7G/WgqAYUUTMPH0rwXO+SKv1l0nlLHsChv5FrLNGfHcq+8IgoJ6JXDPM9WOgk 0d+JMZveTOQsyWtbrvf9YqLR+vAwyCJ1XQ9MB5vOeJYBz9dvpZDZNNnYM9eYc1zlw0PI hYwZ4wKoEk/tjshmjDwXNiOw7SzC6GhA3dX+oOWV1fizJDYYiyk3NIv5QhN2/RyONMsO fXeq0/ABhi60GAjod+lmASiwTccqT9ULqt2eZa+jdzUof+LcLzu8mOaeWMwEeEq6fx/G W0/A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.49.100 with SMTP id t4mr11113129lbn.10.1341462237728; Wed, 04 Jul 2012 21:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.3 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 21:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120704154807.GC23139@1wt.eu>
References: <CALaySJK8-1d_ZhJ=SyyyarNEmZ2qR8+Sxn6yg0Pgj5j_yWbQfg@mail.gmail.com> <20120703190401.GL17454@1wt.eu> <CALaySJKm3awBGW4XhUbZuwVzWF0ySH_X8xNSVuD06ER5pqWvBA@mail.gmail.com> <4FF344C5.6000105@gmx.de> <CALaySJKbErCdYxs3Hhw6MDGE8Bm=3BUMVi5XuQXf9=KOw7CdMQ@mail.gmail.com> <4FF347D3.7000905@gmx.de> <CALaySJJBseuuuBNOEq1=GREBLa5V016muJ9rvTosZAoundy-Kw@mail.gmail.com> <4FF34CAE.5020302@gmx.de> <CALaySJKqkzY2g9zF6DzUGv2oZ-wi0L9KDFCMXwnDhcHsBysfHw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZjUeR0ifE_8EYj_0wTNRCau1Fy_NqpaL8vda3Mvnrn2g@mail.gmail.com> <20120704154807.GC23139@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 21:23:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZc99Xv2UNc7FKzVOY8O12W-WUpXvwYjMKeee6MARoyQw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec554d63c28d12d04c40d846a"
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-05 issue: multiple copies of Forwarded vs comma-separated list
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 04:23:48 -0000

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> I think it dates at least back to SMTP, where you very commonly see this
> with
> the Cc and To headers. Also, keep in mind that the two formats have a real
> use,
> to limit the max length of a given header field value without forcing
> everyone
> to send multiple occurrences each on their own line.
>
>
I'm not sure that's a valid comparison.  You can't have more than one To or
Cc field with mail.  The only option is to update the one that's there, or
add one if it's missing.

In this case we're talking about forwarding, and the path requests take.
That's analogous to trace fields in email, and you're never allowed to
modify those.  You always add new ones.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email