Re: p7: forwarding Proxy-*

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 30 April 2013 07:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AD8421F9B63 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.129
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.129 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.470, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 ys3EI3PVzlOF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E4921F9B60 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UX4zA-000722-Aj for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:28:24 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:28:24 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UX4zA-000722-Aj@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UX4z0-0006zr-Vw for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:28:15 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UX4yz-0006Ic-W4 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:28:14 +0000
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C96D509B6; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 03:27:50 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20130430072132.GH21517@1wt.eu>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:27:47 +1000
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <83433D74-71D9-49CB-9FED-30ED4119F9FA@mnot.net>
References: <76583F5C-A175-42EA-B0A0-CB5663A5E3AC@mnot.net> <9E71BAB0-0D88-4B6E-B1A1-AA228349E3CA@gbiv.com> <27ED39F0-723C-4358-9A22-4AAEEC1BA912@mnot.net> <20130430072132.GH21517@1wt.eu>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.312, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UX4yz-0006Ic-W4 0e341658c9dc8f5b7abff097fd614b4c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p7: forwarding Proxy-*
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/83433D74-71D9-49CB-9FED-30ED4119F9FA@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17718
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Makes sense to me. We need to note the change at the end of p1, though, since it's a significant change from 2616.


On 30/04/2013, at 5:21 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:04:53PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Well, they're listed as hop-by-hop in 2616, and AFAICT we haven't explicitly
>> discussed changing that.
> 
> Maybe because at the time 2616 was written, intermediaries were almost only
> proxies. But I agree with Roy here, if I install haproxy to load-balance a
> squid farm, the proxy-auth headers are for squid and not for haproxy. So it's
> not hop-by-hop, it's for the first explicit proxy in the chain. So I agree
> with Roy here.
> 
>> Are you saying that they shouldn't be included in Connection, ever?
> 
> I would personally suggest so.
> 
> Willy
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/