IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-proxy-explanation-00.txt

"Thomas Mangin" <thomas.mangin@exa-networks.co.uk> Wed, 02 March 2016 10:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206141ACDAA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 02:22:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p74s2ecl0GYA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 02:22:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEE021ACDA8 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 02:22:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ab3qU-0007h9-ET for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 10:17:30 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 10:17:30 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ab3qU-0007h9-ET@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <thomas.mangin@exa-networks.co.uk>) id 1ab3qP-0007g4-6a for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 10:17:25 +0000
Received: from out-1.mail.exa.net.uk ([82.219.4.129]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <thomas.mangin@exa-networks.co.uk>) id 1ab3q4-0008DT-6Z for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 10:17:24 +0000
Received: from smtp-5.mail.exa.net.uk (unknown [82.219.5.5]) by out-1.mail.exa.net.uk (ExaSMTPD) with ESMTP id 1FE641C0060; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:16:40 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from smtp-5.mail.exa.net.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-5.mail.exa.net.uk (ExaSMTPD) with ESMTP id 0A47F40642; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:16:40 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.12.32.12] (ptr-5.212.219.82.rev.exa.net.uk [82.219.212.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: thomas@mangin.com) by smtp-5.mail.exa.net.uk (ExaSMTPD) with ESMTPSA; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:16:39 +0000 (GMT)
From: Thomas Mangin <thomas.mangin@exa-networks.co.uk>
To: hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 10:16:36 +0000
Message-ID: <CC54CB6A-C22E-44DC-A9A6-1B68D79D34A5@exa-networks.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <DC6A5E50-5F88-474E-B563-FBD7F464FBE8@exa-networks.co.uk>
References: <8AF0B2F7-561F-464B-840A-1F1B61F8370F@mnot.net> <20160301050755.8E4D9365C@welho-filter2.welho.com> <20160301052245.D97763DF4@welho-filter4.welho.com> <22B52B27-29E3-4107-A0AA-1A5ACFB9E0FA@exa-networks.co.uk> <201603020508.u2258kdD032054@shell.siilo.fmi.fi> <DC6A5E50-5F88-474E-B563-FBD7F464FBE8@exa-networks.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5226)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=82.219.4.129; envelope-from=thomas.mangin@exa-networks.co.uk; helo=out-1.mail.exa.net.uk
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1ab3q4-0008DT-6Z 10d4b99a64d7a4895ef61219273f1a07
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-proxy-explanation-00.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CC54CB6A-C22E-44DC-A9A6-1B68D79D34A5@exa-networks.co.uk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31144
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>

> any header would pass through towards the origin and then could be 
> used by another non-configured proxy down the line.

clarification: it should read ‘could pass’ and not ‘would pass’.

While section 14.10 of RFC 2616 / 6.1 of RFC 7230 does have a rule for 
header stripping, it may not be correctly implemented by proxies.
To be perfectly honest, I just had a look at my/our own code and we did 
not implement it - patch pending :-(.

However as long as any proxy implementing the draft does follow this 
rule it looks like a good solution.

Thomas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email