#473, was: p7: forwarding Proxy-*

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sun, 28 July 2013 11:09 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 BA8A921F8E97 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 04:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, 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 3UdCnFtoVzFN for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 04:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A070521F909A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 04:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V3Opp-0008Ff-7K for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:08:21 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:08:21 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V3Opp-0008Ff-7K@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1V3Opf-0008Dv-Kl for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:08:11 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1V3Ope-0003U1-Sd for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:08:11 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.117] ([93.217.92.249]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MS5Dm-1UfdaU2PL0-00TGSw for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 13:07:44 +0200
Message-ID: <51F4FB7F.3050807@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 13:07:43 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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>
In-Reply-To: <3257D0DA-F6FA-4E24-919C-C4FB4864F69E@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:WhAfQCQP8ev/pHNozXsBPBHFiNSsLRDmr+klT217er3Lg9TvU9X b2GtwpJnjAsfmKqVM10P4Pxy4w0Wv6cwlm49h8Ond+F7V/aKhCc1ahTf5C5X64N703/W07O oVO+cBqCmG6/ZZvtMTam+4r2SOkvB+s5h1lmMBFc+CUDE3qUz0P8/w/BfkJzsxFrs2+psqP QvdDruOKLcbHORZmfwqDg==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.18; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.464, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V3Ope-0003U1-Sd b3abae3f543f0f15186feecf6b992041
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: #473, was: p7: forwarding Proxy-*
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51F4FB7F.3050807@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18947
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>

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