Re: p7: forwarding Proxy-*

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 07 May 2013 05:20 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 230E121F8651 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2013 22:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, 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 d8Holppx1RKS for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2013 22:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD7A921F8529 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 6 May 2013 22:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UZaJb-0004ym-4a for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 05:19:51 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 05:19:51 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UZaJb-0004ym-4a@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UZaJR-0004y3-4t for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 05:19:41 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UZaJQ-0007Wt-IE for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 05:19:41 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.105.214]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E8DE222E1F3; Tue, 7 May 2013 01:19:18 -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: <37ABC670-148B-4D7A-AE21-6692EFFC122F@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:19:15 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3257D0DA-F6FA-4E24-919C-C4FB4864F69E@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>
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.414, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UZaJQ-0007Wt-IE 627d9027abe379faa9f9d8e0f5daf335
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p7: forwarding Proxy-*
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/3257D0DA-F6FA-4E24-919C-C4FB4864F69E@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17859
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>

OK, assigning for -23 with an editorial change to P1 to note the difference from 2616 (e.g., in "Changes from RFC2616").


On 30/04/2013, at 5:58 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>; wrote:

> On Apr 29, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> Well, they're listed as hop-by-hop in 2616, and AFAICT we haven't explicitly discussed changing that.
> 
> It's complicated.  The Proxy-auth fields were defined before
> keep-alive and Connection existed.  I remember trying to phrase
> that multiple times back in the early days.  In this case, it is
> better to simply define how it works without Connection and let
> the normal Connection semantics apply when used (if ever).
> 
>> Are you saying that they shouldn't be included in Connection, ever?
> 
> 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.
> 
> ....Roy

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