Re: #473, was: p7: forwarding Proxy-*

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 29 July 2013 12:35 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 4C47C21F9D1F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 05:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.000, 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 gk5IWzcBPlRp for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 05:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE76B21F942D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 05:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V3mcZ-00058s-Pi for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:32:15 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:32:15 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V3mcZ-00058s-Pi@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 1V3mcO-000580-1U for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:32:04 +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 1V3mcM-0001eP-UW for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:32:03 +0000
Received: from dhcp-53cf.meeting.ietf.org (unknown [130.129.83.207]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD3E7509B6; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:31:40 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <51F4FB7F.3050807@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:31:40 +0200
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D9E38713-A86F-47BE-9124-D4EA88700BD3@mnot.net>
References: <76583F5C-A175-42EA-B0A0-CB5663A5E3AC@mnot.net> <9E71BAB0-0D88-4B6E-B1A1-AA228349E3CA@gbiv.com> <27ED39F0-723C-4358-9A22-4AAEEC1BA912@mnot.net> <37ABC670-148B-4D7A-AE21-6692EFFC122F@gbiv.com> <3257D0DA-F6FA-4E24-919C-C4FB4864F69E@mnot.net> <51F4FB7F.3050807@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
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=-2.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.281, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V3mcM-0001eP-UW 747214683ab689450a79a3dd8fd98796
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #473, was: p7: forwarding Proxy-*
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/D9E38713-A86F-47BE-9124-D4EA88700BD3@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18952
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>

The conclusion of the conversation was Roy's statement:

> No, I am just saying that Connection is not required; if it is not
> included in Connection, then the intention is that it be forwarded
> until consumed.  OTOH, if it is included in Connection, then it
> will be consumed or deleted by the immediate recipient.  AFAIK,
> these fields are not normally included in Connection, but there
> might be a good reason to if the proxy selection is complicated.

Which seems reasonable and no one has objected. However, p7 still says:

> Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field applies only to the current connection, and intermediaries should not forward it to downstream clients. However, an intermediate proxy might need to obtain its own credentials by requesting them from the downstream client, which in some circumstances will appear as if the proxy is forwarding the Proxy-Authenticate header field.

… with similar text for Proxy-Authorization. The "SHOULD NOT forward…" requirement is in conflict with the sentiment expressed above.

I've changed the target to p7.

Cheers,



On Jul 28, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2013-05-07 07:19, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> OK, assigning for -23 with an editorial change to P1 to note the difference from 2616 (e.g., in "Changes from RFC2616").
> 
> In -21, we removed the concept of implicit hop-by-hop altogether; and this is mentioned already:
> 
> "Clarify exactly when "close" connection options have to be sent; drop notion of header fields being "hop-by-hop" without being listed in the Connection header field. (Section 6.1)" -- <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-21.html#rfc.section.A.2.p.9>
> 
> Do we really need to mention Proxy-* explicitly?
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
> 
> 
> 

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