Re: HTTP/1.1 & Proxies

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Andrew Daviel: "Re: Forcing to another page to load"
• Previous message: David W. Morris: "Re: ISSUE PROXY-AUTHORIZATION: Proposal wording"
• Maybe in reply to: Yaron Goland: "HTTP/1.1 & Proxies"

At 06:18 AM 7/2/97 -0700, Josh wrote:
>> 
>> There would be a *presumption* that any server/proxy that added a trail
>> entry claiming to be HTTP/1.1 (or whatever) would obey some defined set of
>> rules.
>
>This is really the bigger problem.  We need to detect a finer grain
>than 'http/1.1'.  We need to check for either compliance
>or implementation of optional parts of the spec or enhancements.

Maybe I missed something.  I thought the fundamental problem was with
pre-HTTP/1.1 proxies which did not properly downgrade the HTTP version number.

Of course, we must always expect broken implementations (which was why I
thought an implementationm ID should appear in a server trail).

Further, any approach which relies on down-the-line co-operation will be
susceptible to maliciously broken implementations (e.g., a broken
"MoonSoft" proxy which masquerades as a popular Netscape implementation, or
whatever).  But I think even this might be detectable *if* one is prepared
to go to sufficient lengths. (Probably further lengths than those to which
Larry would be prepared to consent, judging by a recent posting.)

GK.
---

------------
Graham Klyne
GK@ACM.ORG

• Next message: Andrew Daviel: "Re: Forcing to another page to load"
• Previous message: David W. Morris: "Re: ISSUE PROXY-AUTHORIZATION: Proposal wording"
• Maybe in reply to: Yaron Goland: "HTTP/1.1 & Proxies"