From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Fri Oct 1 06:30:19 1999 Received: from atlrel1.hp.com (atlrel1.hp.com [156.153.255.210]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA11204 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 06:30:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel1.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id GAA17205; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 06:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id LAA10326; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:28:50 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id LAA16982; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:28:35 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:28:35 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <002e01bf0bf7$e12e0360$bfa9dccc@hiso.honeywell.com> From: "Chandras" To: "List" Subject: RE: A proposed method for tracing broken links Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 15:59:29 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002B_01BF0C25.F1671090" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <"xp81g3.0.J94.Jp8zt"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/593 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01BF0C25.F1671090 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --------------on Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:53:53 +0200 Matteo Pampolini (matteo.pampolini@italtel.it) wrote: Hi all, my name is Matteo Pampolini, I'm an italian communications researcher engineer and I'm involved in Internet applications and services development. Currently I'm working on a method for tracing broken links inside an HTML page: is there anyone working on the same topic? I searched the W3C site but I found nothing about it. I have a quite simple proposal on how to perform such a task, should I write a detailed document and submit it to this list? Sorry for this last question but I'm new to this mailing list, so I would like to know exactly how to behave. Thanks a lot, >Now > I chandra am a graduating student and working on the same type of project ( tracing broken links ). Infact i am new to the project. i would like to hear your proposal on the aforementioned topic thank you chandra. ------ Content-Type: text/html; charset Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

--------------on Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:53:53 +0200 Matteo Pampolini (matteo.pampolini@italtel.it) wrote:

Hi all,

my name is Matteo Pampolini, I'm an italian communications researcher
engineer and I'm involved in Internet applications and services development.

Currently I'm working on a method for tracing broken links inside an HTML
page: is there anyone working on the same topic? I searched the W3C site
but I found nothing about it.

I have a quite simple proposal on how to perform such a task, should I write
a detailed document and submit it to this list?

Sorry for this last question but I'm new to this mailing list, so I would like
to know exactly how to behave.

Thanks a lot,

>Now

I chandra am a graduating student and working on the same type of project ( tracing broken links ). Infact i am new to the project. i would like to hear your proposal

on the aforementioned topic

thank you

chandra.

------ ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01BF0C25.F1671090-- From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Fri Oct 1 12:57:43 1999 Received: from atlrel2.hp.com (atlrel2.hp.com [156.153.255.202]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18917 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 12:57:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel2.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id MAA12310; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 12:56:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id RAA08130; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:56:48 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id RAA18704; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:56:36 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:56:36 +0100 (BST) From: Mark Nottingham To: List Reply-To: Mark Nottingham MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: IMP/PHP3 Imap webMail Program 2.0.3 Sender: mnot@mnot.net X-Originating-IP: 146.101.132.23 Subject: WG meeting in Washington? Message-Id: <19991001164327.D51EFC4F0@mail.mnot.net> Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 02:43:27 +1000 (EST) Resent-Message-ID: <"XDqZV.0.Aa4.4VEzt"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/594 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Are there plans for http-wg to meet at the next IETF? If so, I'd like to request that discussion about draft-nottingham-http-roles-00.txt be considered (I plan to have 01 available before the draft deadline). I'm of the opinion that it's most appropriate here, but I'm open to discussing alternate forums. Thanks, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Fri Oct 1 17:42:59 1999 Received: from atlrel1.hp.com (atlrel1.hp.com [156.153.255.210]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23933 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel1.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id RAA29899; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:41:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id WAA07849; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 22:42:13 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id WAA22848; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 22:41:52 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 22:41:52 +0100 (BST) To: Mark Nottingham cc: List Subject: Re: WG meeting in Washington? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 02 Oct 1999 02:43:27 +1000." <19991001164327.D51EFC4F0@mail.mnot.net> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 14:40:37 -0700 From: "Roy T. Fielding" Message-ID: <199910011440.aa21327@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"1vJey3.0.za5.WgIzt"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/595 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com In message <19991001164327.D51EFC4F0@mail.mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham writes: >Are there plans for http-wg to meet at the next IETF? If so, I'd like to >request that discussion about draft-nottingham-http-roles-00.txt be >considered (I plan >to have 01 available before the draft deadline). I'm of the opinion that it's >most appropriate here, but I'm open to discussing alternate forums. The HTTP working group is expected to close as soon as the last of the existing drafts are moved to RFC. While there is value in documenting some implementation concerns for HTTP, your draft is not appropriate for the IETF standards track. The reason is because IETF standards specify the protocol, not the means by which servers are implemented to conform to that protocol. Phrasing a bunch of implementation concerns as if they were protocol requirements is not appropriate, however well intentioned and useful the document may be. ....Roy From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Sat Oct 2 11:26:24 1999 Received: from palrel3.hp.com (palrel3.hp.com [156.153.255.226]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13263 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:26:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by palrel3.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id IAA17531; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 08:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id QAA05146; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 16:25:08 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id QAA02142; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 16:24:52 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 16:24:52 +0100 (BST) From: Mark Nottingham To: "Roy T. Fielding" , List Reply-To: Mark Nottingham References: <199910011440.aa21327@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> In-Reply-To: <199910011440.aa21327@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: IMP/PHP3 Imap webMail Program 2.0.3 Sender: mnot@mnot.net X-Originating-IP: 146.101.132.180 Subject: Re: WG meeting in Washington? Message-Id: <19991002151130.A34EDC4F0@mail.mnot.net> Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 01:11:30 +1000 (EST) Resent-Message-ID: <"EeWkY2.0.RX.4FYzt"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/596 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > While there is value in documenting some implementation concerns for HTTP, > your draft is not appropriate for the IETF standards track. The reason is > because IETF standards specify the protocol, not the means by which servers > are implemented to conform to that protocol. Phrasing a bunch of > implementation concerns as if they were protocol requirements is not > appropriate, however well intentioned and useful the document may be. OK. I was thinking that it may have qualified as an Applicability Statement, as in section 3.2 of RFC 2026. Looking back, I see how that's probably taking too much license with what's there, at least for http-wg. In any case, I'm happy if people just start thinking and discussing this stuff, irregardless of the status of the doc. If there is another more appropriate place that this sort of thing could live, please tell me. Thanks, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Mon Oct 4 13:44:31 1999 Received: from cosrel1.hp.com (cosrel1.hp.com [156.153.255.170]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05979 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:44:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by cosrel1.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id LAA09111; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:43:23 -0600 (MDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id SAA19151; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 18:43:14 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id SAA21640; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 18:42:59 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 18:42:59 +0100 (BST) From: "Larry Masinter" To: "Mark Nottingham" , "Roy T. Fielding" Cc: "HTTP Working Group" Subject: RE: WG meeting in Washington? Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:42:10 PDT Message-ID: <004001bf0e8f$c9001040$c3d2000d@copper.parc.xerox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <19991002151130.A34EDC4F0@mail.mnot.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"emLo01.0.5I5.YSE-t"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/597 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think that the HTTP working group mailing list is an appropriate forum for discussion of Mark Nottingham's document "Server-Side Roles in the HTTP". Even after the working group officially closes, the mailing list remains open for discussion of evolution of the protocol, errata, and progression to 'Standard' status. Please note that 'http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com' is preferable to 'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'. I've seen, for other protocols, an "Implementation Guide" released as an Informational document. Larry -- http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Mon Oct 4 20:02:54 1999 Received: from palrel3.hp.com (palrel3.hp.com [156.153.255.226]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10276 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 20:02:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by palrel3.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id RAA23707; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 17:01:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id BAA15006; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:01:29 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id BAA22480; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:01:17 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:01:17 +0100 (BST) From: "Larry Masinter" To: "Geoff Macartney" Cc: Subject: RE: Host header issue Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 17:00:33 PDT Message-ID: <002801bf0ec4$a4cadb80$8c67010d@copper.parc.xerox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <37F363CD.87C3D72@apion-tss.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"Ga_pw.0.AV5.D_J-t"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/598 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > In the recent discussion on this topic I haven't seen a query on the > text in section 14.23 "Host" of RFC 2616 which says : > > "If the requested URI does not include an Internet host > name for the service being requested, then the Host header field MUST > be given with an empty value. " > > It is the "with an empty value" that confuses me - this seems to > contradict what is written in section 5.1.2: > "The most common form of Request-URI is that used to identify a > resource on an origin server or gateway. In this case the absolute > path of the URI MUST be transmitted (see section 3.2.1, abs_path) as > the Request-URI, and the network location of the URI (authority) MUST > > be transmitted in a Host header field. " > [...] > GET /pub/WWW/TheProject.html HTTP/1.1 > Host: www.w3.org > > If the text in 14.23 were followed you'd get > > GET /pub/WWW/TheProject.html HTTP/1.1 > Host: > > which would surely be wrong. My understanding from the spec and this > discussion thread is that it should be possible to identify the host, > whether by a relative URI plus valid Host value or by an absolute URI > (plus redundant Host header, which I suppose you could legitimately > allow to have an empty value in this case?) > > Is this one for the errata? Well, it probably deserves a clarification. What I vaguely recall is that we were trying to leave room for non-HTTP based proxying, e.g., where you asked your proxy GET news:comp.infosystems.www HTTP/1.1 Host: Clearly not the interpretation you read into it. Does anyone else recall what we really meant? From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Mon Oct 4 23:10:01 1999 Received: from atlrel1.hp.com (atlrel1.hp.com [156.153.255.210]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA13177 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel1.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id XAA23079; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:08:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id EAA04782; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 04:08:57 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id EAA22835; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 04:08:42 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 04:08:42 +0100 (BST) To: Larry Masinter cc: Mark Nottingham , HTTP Working Group Subject: Re: WG meeting in Washington? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 04 Oct 1999 10:42:10 PDT." <004001bf0e8f$c9001040$c3d2000d@copper.parc.xerox.com> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 20:07:27 -0700 From: "Roy T. Fielding" Message-ID: <199910042007.aa24193@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"tYpXh1.0.ma5.wkM-t"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/599 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com >I think that the HTTP working group mailing list >is an appropriate forum for discussion of >Mark Nottingham's document "Server-Side Roles in the HTTP". Only if it isn't talking about issues of compliance and using the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in as described in RFC-2119. That is not what an implementation guide does, and I doubt that the IESG would want that in an Informational document. I have no objection to discussions on how to best implement HTTP, or further rationale to back up the HTTP requirements. What I object to is implementation advice for general-purpose server technology that is made-over to look like protocol requirements. The W3C does that sort of thing, but the IETF does not (at least not without clearly distinguishing between informational content and protocol requirements). ....Roy From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Tue Oct 5 01:37:26 1999 Received: from palrel3.hp.com (palrel3.hp.com [156.153.255.226]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18323 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:37:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by palrel3.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id WAA21402; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 22:36:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id GAA14107; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:36:19 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id GAA01502; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:36:04 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:36:04 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: From: "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" To: "'Larry Masinter'" , Geoff Macartney Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Subject: RE: Host header issue Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 22:34:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Resent-Message-ID: <"xpzl02.0.RN.4vO-t"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/600 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com I cant say if this is consensus, but my take was that you only use the host header when you are proxying/requesting http urls. This is because the Host: header and value only make sense for HTTP URLS. The main point of adding the host header was to address the "shortcoming" of http urls that didnt indicate a host portion. > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Masinter [mailto:masinter@parc.xerox.com] > Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 5:01 PM > To: Geoff Macartney > Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com > Subject: RE: Host header issue > > > > In the recent discussion on this topic I haven't seen a query on the > > text in section 14.23 "Host" of RFC 2616 which says : > > > > "If the requested URI does not include an Internet host > > name for the service being requested, then the Host > header field MUST > > be given with an empty value. " > > > > It is the "with an empty value" that confuses me - this seems to > > contradict what is written in section 5.1.2: > > "The most common form of Request-URI is that used to identify a > > resource on an origin server or gateway. In this case > the absolute > > path of the URI MUST be transmitted (see section 3.2.1, > abs_path) as > > the Request-URI, and the network location of the URI > (authority) MUST > > > > be transmitted in a Host header field. " > > [...] > > GET /pub/WWW/TheProject.html HTTP/1.1 > > Host: www.w3.org > > > > If the text in 14.23 were followed you'd get > > > > GET /pub/WWW/TheProject.html HTTP/1.1 > > Host: > > > > which would surely be wrong. My understanding from the spec and this > > discussion thread is that it should be possible to identify > the host, > > whether by a relative URI plus valid Host value or by an > absolute URI > > (plus redundant Host header, which I suppose you could legitimately > > allow to have an empty value in this case?) > > > > Is this one for the errata? > > Well, it probably deserves a clarification. What I vaguely recall > is that we were trying to leave room for non-HTTP based proxying, > e.g., where you asked your proxy > > GET news:comp.infosystems.www HTTP/1.1 > Host: > > Clearly not the interpretation you read into it. Does anyone else > recall what we really meant? > > From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Tue Oct 5 01:40:09 1999 Received: from atlrel2.hp.com (atlrel2.hp.com [156.153.255.202]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18544 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:40:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel2.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id BAA29948; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:38:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id GAA14279; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:39:21 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id GAA01603; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:39:09 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:39:09 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: From: "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" To: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Subject: A proposal for Host header Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 22:37:37 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Resent-Message-ID: <"4e_Rr1.0.0P.zxO-t"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/601 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com I would like to propose: 1) If a client is issuing a 1.1 request and the client has obtained positive knowledge, possibly through an out of band mechanism, that all proxies and the origin server in the request path are 1.1 compliant or better, that it may omit the host header when absolute URIs are used. 2) Clients are permitted to use absoluteURIs when talking to 1.1 servers. Does this seem reasonable ? From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Tue Oct 5 08:06:38 1999 Received: from atlrel1.hp.com (atlrel1.hp.com [156.153.255.210]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA27017 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 08:06:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel1.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id IAA10629; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 08:05:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id NAA11193; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:06:07 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id NAA02784; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:05:54 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:05:54 +0100 (BST) Sender: francis@ariel.local.thibault.org Message-ID: <37F9E975.EFC8F845@ecal.com> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 08:05:09 -0400 From: John Stracke X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" CC: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Subject: Re: A proposal for Host header References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"KrPCT1.0.Th.YcU-t"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/603 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" wrote: > I would like to propose: > > 1) If a client is issuing a 1.1 request and the client has obtained > positive knowledge, possibly through an out of band mechanism, that all > proxies and the origin server in the request path are 1.1 compliant or > better, that it may omit the host header when absolute URIs are used. > > 2) Clients are permitted to use absoluteURIs when talking to 1.1 servers. > > Does this seem reasonable ? The problem is that, even if you find out that foo.example.com is a 1.1 server, you can't be certain that that will remain true. There's the usual problem of people upgrading their software, of course, but there's also the issue of load balancing. If not all the machines that handle requests to foo.example.com are running 1.1 servers, then any assumption about whether the one you're talking to is 1.1 or not will break eventually. Similarly, there might be a heterogeneous proxy farm somewhere along the path. -- /==============================================================\ |John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.| |Chief Scientist |=============================================| |eCal Corp. |This sentance has threee errors. | |francis@ecal.com| | \==============================================================/ From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Tue Oct 5 08:27:21 1999 Received: from atlrel1.hp.com (atlrel1.hp.com [156.153.255.210]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA28267 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 08:27:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel1.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id IAA14993; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 08:26:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id NAA12944; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:27:02 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id NAA02951; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:26:50 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:26:50 +0100 (BST) From: "Larry Masinter" To: "HTTP Working Group" Subject: HTTP to "Standard"? When? Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 05:26:12 PDT Message-ID: <000501bf0f2c$cfcf24e0$c3d2000d@copper.parc.xerox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"VnrbU.0.0k.AwU-t"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/604 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If they won't let the working group close, maybe we should try to do something. Actually, I don't think the WG needs to remain officially open for this, but... Under RFC 2026: A specification for which significant implementation and successful operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet community. A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number. and A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at least four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has occurred, whichever comes later. RFC 2616 was published June 1999, so it's been 4 months. We only have a few errata. RFC 2616 was pretty stable for over a year. There is significant implementation and successful operational experience for most of HTTP & HTTP-AUTH, although a few corners of the specs might need a little more baking. We might want to do another round on the implementation reports, and try to get some finer granularity of reporting. Last time we enumerated every section, but I think we might want to look more carefully at every MUST, SHOULD, and MAY to see if there's both implementation and successful operational experience. What's a reasonable schedule for advancement to "Standard"? I'm thinking on the 6-month timeframe. March 2000. in lunacy, Larry -- http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Tue Oct 5 08:34:04 1999 Received: from palrel3.hp.com (palrel3.hp.com [156.153.255.226]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA28524 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 08:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by palrel3.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id EAA22128; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 04:25:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id MAA08835; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 12:25:16 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id MAA02605; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 12:24:55 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 12:24:55 +0100 (BST) From: "Vani" To: "HTTP" Subject: Problem Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:49:11 +0530 Message-ID: <01bf0f23$72e73410$4402a8c0@vani> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_011E_01BF0F51.8C9F7010" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"kw3x82.0.de.70U-t"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/602 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_011E_01BF0F51.8C9F7010 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, As i am writing http server.I got some problems while sending = animated images with extension gif. I am sending image/gif header in the response. For some i can't see the image and for some images the image is not = appeared ,just showing button over there. If anyone know the reason,please inform me Thanku Bye ------=_NextPart_000_011E_01BF0F51.8C9F7010 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

As i am=20 writing http server.I got some problems while sending animated images = with=20 extension gif.

I am sending = image/gif header=20 in the response.

For some i = can't see the=20 image and for some images the image is not appeared ,just showing button = over=20 there.

If anyone know the = reason,please inform=20 me

Thanku

Bye

------=_NextPart_000_011E_01BF0F51.8C9F7010-- From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Tue Oct 5 16:46:48 1999 Received: from palrel3.hp.com (palrel3.hp.com [156.153.255.226]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12585 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:46:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by palrel3.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id NAA07471; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id VAA23788; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 21:45:54 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id VAA03604; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 21:45:39 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 21:45:39 +0100 (BST) To: Larry Masinter cc: HTTP Working Group Subject: Re: HTTP to "Standard"? When? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 05 Oct 1999 05:26:12 PDT." <000501bf0f2c$cfcf24e0$c3d2000d@copper.parc.xerox.com> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 13:44:26 -0700 From: "Roy T. Fielding" Message-ID: <199910051344.aa09264@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"cLMJv.0.Hu.pDc-t"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/605 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com >What's a reasonable schedule for advancement to "Standard"? >I'm thinking on the 6-month timeframe. March 2000. Geez, Larry, get a hobby. ;-) Seriously, the timeframe would be six months after all the dependent standards (MIME, URI, etc.) make it to Standard. I'm pretty sure I'll be finished with my dissertation by then and ready to retire. ....Roy From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Tue Oct 5 16:48:34 1999 Received: from palrel3.hp.com (palrel3.hp.com [156.153.255.226]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12628 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:48:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by palrel3.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id NAA08470; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:48:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id VAA24639; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 21:48:05 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id VAA03667; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 21:47:52 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 21:47:52 +0100 (BST) To: "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Subject: Re: A proposal for Host header In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 04 Oct 1999 22:37:37 PDT." Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 13:46:35 -0700 From: "Roy T. Fielding" Message-ID: <199910051346.aa09425@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"C93lm2.0.Gv.uFc-t"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/606 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com In message , "Josh Cohen (Exch ange)" writes: >I would like to propose: > >1) If a client is issuing a 1.1 request and the client has obtained >positive knowledge, possibly through an out of band mechanism, that all >proxies and the origin server in the request path are 1.1 compliant or >better, that it may omit the host header when absolute URIs are used. > >2) Clients are permitted to use absoluteURIs when talking to 1.1 servers. > >Does this seem reasonable ? Of course not. Try it with any HTTP/1.1 compliant server now and you will get a 400 response. Those servers won't disappear just because an RFC is modified. This part of the standard will never change without a version bump. Never. ....Roy From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Wed Oct 6 14:26:48 1999 Received: from atlrel2.hp.com (atlrel2.hp.com [156.153.255.202]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16151 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:26:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel2.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id OAA19764; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:25:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id TAA14906; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 19:25:57 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id TAA13052; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 19:25:42 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 19:25:42 +0100 (BST) From: Mark Nottingham To: "Roy T. Fielding" , Larry Masinter , HTTP Working Group Reply-To: Mark Nottingham References: <199910042007.aa24193@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> In-Reply-To: <199910042007.aa24193@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: IMP/PHP3 Imap webMail Program 2.0.3 Sender: mnot@mnot.net X-Originating-IP: 212.210.33.224 Subject: Re: WG meeting in Washington? Message-Id: <19991006181235.67007C4F0@mail.mnot.net> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 04:12:35 +1000 (EST) Resent-Message-ID: <"NYhSE1.0.vB3.cGv-t"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/607 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Quoting "Roy T. Fielding" : > > I have no objection to discussions on how to best implement HTTP, > or further rationale to back up the HTTP requirements. What I object > to is implementation advice for general-purpose server technology > that is made-over to look like protocol requirements. The W3C does > that sort of thing, but the IETF does not (at least not without clearly > distinguishing between informational content and protocol requirements). Roy, I didn't intend to 'make over' the advice to look like protocol requirements, but I freely admit that they can be interpreted that way; I chose to do it that way because it seemed the most natural and clear way to do so. My logic was that the requirements set forth in it were only in the scope of the document, so that a product could be referred to as compliant with it, over and above protocol compliance. This will hopefully be more clear in a future draft of the document (if there is indeed any point in further revision). I apologize if it's not politic to submit this to the IETF, but it seemed the best place to start (as I don't have the cash to join the W3C). I am (or at least I was during the writing of this draft) very much an outsider. If someone has a suggestion about where this document would best reside (whether that place is in the http-wg or not, as there does seem to be some dissention), I'll be more than happy to talk about it (as I've stated before). -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Wed Oct 6 18:58:15 1999 Received: from atlrel2.hp.com (atlrel2.hp.com [156.153.255.202]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21738 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 18:58:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel2.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id SAA22089; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 18:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id XAA07593; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:57:33 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id XAA13532; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:57:21 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:57:21 +0100 (BST) To: Mark Nottingham cc: HTTP Working Group Subject: Re: WG meeting in Washington? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:12:35 +1000." <19991006181235.67007C4F0@mail.mnot.net> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 15:56:08 -0700 From: "Roy T. Fielding" Message-ID: <199910061556.aa00872@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"ys2jP.0.MJ3.HFz-t"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/608 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com >I didn't intend to 'make over' the advice to look like protocol requirements, Sorry, that wasn't intended as a criticism of you -- just the current format of your draft. If it were actually a protocol spec, I'd be congratulating you on following the proper form and making it easier on the reader. What I am worried about is misinterpreting implementation guidance as protocol requirements. >but I freely admit that they can be interpreted that way; I >chose to do it that way because it seemed the most natural and clear way to do > so. My logic was that the requirements set forth >in it were only in the scope of the document, so that a product could be >referred to as compliant with it, over and above protocol >compliance. This will hopefully be more clear in a future draft of the >document (if there is indeed any point in further revision). I think it is a worthwhile document, provided that it emphasizes rationale and not requirements. For example, there is very good rationale for having the server constrain the i/o interface to conform to the protocol, and there are many examples you might use to explain the rationale, but the protocol requirements do not change as a result. However, phrasing that rationale as "a server MUST do ..." is stating a protocol requirement even if the scope of the document excludes protocol requirements. >I apologize if it's not politic to submit this to the IETF, but it seemed the >best place to start (as I don't have the cash to join the >W3C). I am (or at least I was during the writing of this draft) very much an >outsider. If someone has a suggestion about where >this document would best reside (whether that place is in the http-wg or not, >as there does seem to be some dissention), I'll be >more than happy to talk about it (as I've stated before). I'm not a W3C member, so I wouldn't encourage that path either. What I meant is that W3C does theoretically include implementation conformance among its members as part of its spec writing scope. Larry is the one who decides what is or is not appropriate for this forum, and it seems that he wants to discuss the document here regardless of its eventual publication status. I agree with his reasons, though again I would prefer that the format be changed so that it won't be misinterpreted. ....Roy From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Wed Oct 13 08:37:36 1999 Received: from atlrel1.hp.com (atlrel1.hp.com [156.153.255.210]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20943 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:37:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel1.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id IAA03947; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:36:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id NAA25084; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:37:05 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id NAA21708; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:36:25 +0100 (BST) Resent-Message-Id: <199910131236.NAA21685@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> Prev-Resent: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:36:18 +0100 Prev-Resent: "http-wg@hplb " Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:32:26 +0100 (BST) Old-X-Envelope-From: ekr@rtfm.com Wed Oct 13 04:32:25 1999 Sender: ekr@rtfm.com To: "IETF Transport Layer Security WG" Cc: "Rohit Khare" , "Http-Wg@Hplb. Hpl. Hp. Com" Subject: Re: Last Call: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 to Proposed Standard References: <003301bf051f$3f2e7ec0$954768c0@oyster.agranat.com> <19991013.3071900@jis.ne.mediaone.net> From: EKR Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Old-Date: 12 Oct 1999 20:28:59 -0700 In-Reply-To: Jeffrey Schiller's message of "Wed, 13 Oct 1999 03:07:19 GMT" Message-ID: Lines: 17 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.45/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald" Old-X-Envelope-To: http-wg Resent-To: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:36:19 +0100 Resent-From: Andy Norman X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/611 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Jeffrey Schiller writes: > [3] definitely appears to be normative. Can we get Eric's Document > advanced (This question is to the working group)? I've received last call comments from Bodo Moeller with new wording for one section. There have been no technical changes. I've just responded to Bodo's message. Unless there are any objections, I believe we can move the document forward with the indicated trivial changes. (I.e. I'll submit a new I-D with them.) -Ekr -- [Eric Rescorla ekr@rtfm.com] PureTLS - free SSLv3/TLS software for Java http://www.rtfm.com/puretls/ From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Wed Oct 13 08:37:37 1999 Received: from atlrel1.hp.com (atlrel1.hp.com [156.153.255.210]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20930 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:37:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel1.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id IAA03806; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:35:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id NAA25051; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:36:36 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id NAA21651; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:36:06 +0100 (BST) Resent-Message-Id: <199910131236.NAA21635@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> Prev-Resent: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:36:01 +0100 Prev-Resent: "http-wg@hplb " Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 03:54:57 +0100 (BST) Old-X-Envelope-From: jis@mit.edu Wed Oct 13 03:54:55 1999 From: Jeffrey Schiller Old-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 02:52:31 GMT Message-ID: <19991013.2523100@jis.ne.mediaone.net> Subject: Re: Last Call: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 to Proposed Standard To: "IETF Transport Layer Security WG" CC: "Rohit Khare" , "Http-Wg@Hplb. Hpl. Hp. Com" In-Reply-To: <003301bf051f$3f2e7ec0$954768c0@oyster.agranat.com> References: <003301bf051f$3f2e7ec0$954768c0@oyster.agranat.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (compatible; StarOffice/5.1; Linux) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Old-X-Envelope-To: http-wg Resent-To: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:36:01 +0100 Resent-From: Andy Norman X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/609 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id IAA20930 I didn't realize you were waiting for me to approve. Please do make the necessary changes and submit a new document. -Jeff >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< On 9/22/99, 5:23:55 PM, "Scott Lawrence" wrote regarding Re: Last Call: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 to Proposed Standard: > > >The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security > > >Working Group to consider Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 > > > as a Proposed Standard. > > >To: iesg@ietf.org, IETF-Announce:; > > >From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand > > >Subject: Re: Last Call: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 to Proposed > > > Standard > [...] > >IANA considerations section for upgrade tokens is not thought through. > >At the least, the registrant should be allowed to change the contact > details > >for a registration, so the statement > > > > > 1. The registration for a given token MUST NOT be changed once > registered. > > > >is obviously not what's desired. > > > >I'd suggest the following rules: > > > >1. A token, once registered, stays registered forever. > >2. The registration MUST name a responsible party for the registration. > >3. The registration MUST name a point of contact. > >4. The registration MAY name the documentation required for the token. > >5. The responsible party MAY change the registration at any time. The > > IANA will keep a record of all such changes, and make them > available > > upon request. > >6. The responsible party for the first registration of a "product" > token > > MUST approve later registrations of a "version" token together > with that > > "product" token before they can be registered. > >7. If absolutely required, the IESG MAY reassign the responsibility for > > a token. This will normally only be used in the case when a > responsible > > party cannot be contacted. > > > >A lot more words, but I think it's more workable. > An excellent formulation. The authors will gratefully accept this as a > friendly amendment if the IESG concurs. > -- > Scott Lawrence Director of R & D > Agranat Systems, Inc. Embedded Web Technology http://www.agranat.com/ > --- > You are currently subscribed to ietf-tls as: [jis@mit.edu] > To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-ietf-tls-557Y@lists.consensus.com From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Wed Oct 13 08:53:26 1999 Received: from atlrel1.hp.com (atlrel1.hp.com [156.153.255.210]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20934 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:37:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel1.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id IAA03910; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:36:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id NAA25071; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:36:55 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id NAA21676; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:36:16 +0100 (BST) Resent-Message-Id: <199910131236.NAA21659@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> Prev-Resent: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:36:10 +0100 Prev-Resent: "http-wg@hplb " Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:09:39 +0100 (BST) Old-X-Envelope-From: jis@mit.edu Wed Oct 13 04:09:38 1999 From: Jeffrey Schiller Old-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 03:07:19 GMT Message-ID: <19991013.3071900@jis.ne.mediaone.net> Subject: Re: Last Call: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 to Proposed Standard To: "IETF Transport Layer Security WG" CC: "Rohit Khare" , "Http-Wg@Hplb. Hpl. Hp. Com" In-Reply-To: <003301bf051f$3f2e7ec0$954768c0@oyster.agranat.com> References: <003301bf051f$3f2e7ec0$954768c0@oyster.agranat.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (compatible; StarOffice/5.1; Linux) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Old-X-Envelope-To: http-wg Resent-To: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:36:10 +0100 Resent-From: Andy Norman X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/610 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id IAA20934 Looks like we have an additional problem. The IANA comments: >draft-ietf-tls-http-upgrade-02.txt, and has the following comment with >regards to the publication of this document. > > In the "References" section, there are three works in progress: > > [3] "HTTP over TLS" > [5] "WebDAV Advanced Collections Protocol" > [8] "Tunneling TCP based protocols throught Web proxy > servers" > > Current status? Are any of them normative? > > >Joyce K. Reynolds >IANA Liaison to the IESG [3] definitely appears to be normative. Can we get Eric's Document advanced (This question is to the working group)? -Jeff From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Wed Oct 13 09:22:04 1999 Received: from cosrel1.hp.com (cosrel1.hp.com [156.153.255.170]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA22974 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:22:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by cosrel1.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id HAA24389; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 07:21:36 -0600 (MDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id OAA00224; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:21:32 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id OAA22021; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:21:15 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:21:15 +0100 (BST) From: "Scott Lawrence" To: "Jeffrey Schiller" , "IETF Transport Layer Security WG" Cc: "Rohit Khare" , "Http-Wg@Hplb. Hpl. Hp. Com" Subject: RE: Last Call: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 to Proposed Standard Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:17:36 -0400 Message-ID: <001c01bf157d$50f82c00$954768c0@oyster.agranat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-reply-to: <19991013.3071900@jis.ne.mediaone.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"RJ44U.0._N5.BT81u"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/612 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Jeffrey Schiller [mailto:jis@mit.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 23:10 > To: IETF Transport Layer Security WG > Cc: Rohit Khare; Http-Wg@Hplb. Hpl. Hp. Com > Subject: Re: Last Call: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 to Proposed > Standard > > > Looks like we have an additional problem. The IANA comments: > > >draft-ietf-tls-http-upgrade-02.txt, and has the following comment > with > >regards to the publication of this document. > > > > In the "References" section, there are three works in progress: > > > > [3] "HTTP over TLS" > > [5] "WebDAV Advanced Collections Protocol" > > [8] "Tunneling TCP based protocols throught Web proxy > > servers" > > > > Current status? Are any of them normative? > > > > > >Joyce K. Reynolds > >IANA Liaison to the IESG > > [3] definitely appears to be normative. Can we get Eric's Document > advanced (This question is to the working group)? [3] documents existing practice for https [5] is noted because it defines an HTTP status code - we could remove it from this document and let them add an entry to the registry we are creating. [8] is an expired draft, referenced only because it was the original description - this document replaces it as far as standards track is concerned. From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Wed Oct 13 11:14:12 1999 Received: from cosrel1.hp.com (cosrel1.hp.com [156.153.255.170]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26902 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:14:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by cosrel1.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id JAA26201; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:13:43 -0600 (MDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id QAA09141; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:13:39 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id QAA22369; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:13:27 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:13:27 +0100 (BST) Sender: francis@ariel.appoint.lan Message-ID: <3804A0A3.5246A299@ecal.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:09:23 -0400 From: John Stracke X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HTTP WG Subject: Re: Last Call: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 to Proposed Standard References: <001c01bf157d$50f82c00$954768c0@oyster.agranat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"yushE1.0.UT5.M6A1u"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/613 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Scott Lawrence wrote: > [5] is noted because it defines an HTTP status code - we could remove it > from this document and let them add an entry to the registry we are > creating. I looked at draft-ietf-tls-http-upgrade-02, and spotted one glitch: you mention that WebDAV defines status codes 420-424, but you didn't mention 207. Not a big deal, maybe, but worth adding if you're updating the doc anyway. -- /==============================================================\ |John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.| |Chief Scientist |=============================================| |eCal Corp. |"I lost an 7-foot boa constrictor once in our| |francis@ecal.com|house." --Gary Larson on his youth | \==============================================================/ From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Mon Oct 18 09:40:29 1999 Received: from atlrel2.hp.com (atlrel2.hp.com [156.153.255.202]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04434 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:40:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel2.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id JAA05644; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:38:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id OAA21866; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:39:36 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id OAA11968; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:39:20 +0100 (BST) Resent-Message-Id: <199910181339.OAA11944@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> Prev-Resent: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:39:14 +0100 Prev-Resent: "http-wg@hplb " Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:27:57 +0100 (BST) Old-X-Envelope-From: jis@mit.edu Wed Oct 13 20:27:56 1999 From: Jeffrey Schiller Old-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:26:01 GMT Message-ID: <19991013.19260100@rw-177.mit.edu> Subject: RE: Last Call: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 to Proposed Standard To: "Scott Lawrence" CC: "Jeffrey Schiller" , "IETF Transport Layer Security WG" , "Rohit Khare" , "Http-Wg@Hplb. Hpl. Hp. Com" In-Reply-To: <001c01bf157d$50f82c00$954768c0@oyster.agranat.com> References: <001c01bf157d$50f82c00$954768c0@oyster.agranat.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (compatible; StarOffice/5.1; Linux) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Old-X-Envelope-To: http-wg Resent-To: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:39:14 +0100 Resent-From: Andy Norman X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/614 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id JAA04434 > > [3] definitely appears to be normative. Can we get Eric's Document > > advanced (This question is to the working group)? > [3] documents existing practice for https However this is still a normative reference, meaning that you need to have this document to understand what is being discussed. That is why I suggested that Eric's document be reviewed by the WG and submitted as a Proposed Standard. > [5] is noted because it defines an HTTP status code - we could remove it > from this document and let them add an entry to the registry we are > creating. > [8] is an expired draft, referenced only because it was the original > description - this document replaces it as far as standards track is > concerned. These are not a problem. -Jeff From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Wed Oct 20 10:21:17 1999 Received: from atlrel2.hp.com (atlrel2.hp.com [156.153.255.202]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03754 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:21:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel2.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id KAA28969; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:19:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id PAA20532; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:20:19 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id PAA02695; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:20:04 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:20:04 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <19991020141918.32220.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [203.197.190.53] From: "Vinit Kumar" To: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Subject: simple http-proxy ? Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:19:17 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"RN7WT.0.4g.K-S3u"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/615 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Hi, I am developing a http proxy server , where I need to just filter the requests based on the URL's accessed and forward the request to the origin server. With the kind of limited resources my proxy server would be executing, I want to make it a very simple one. Do I need to implement the whole http protocol for proxy as per RFC2616 or can I just look at he URL and forward the request as it is to the server? Could somebody point me to a resources , which might help me in writing a simple http proxy server with URL filtering support?? Thanks in advance, Vinit Kumar ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Tue Oct 26 03:53:58 1999 Received: from atlrel2.hp.com (atlrel2.hp.com [156.153.255.202]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA29668 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 03:53:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel2.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id DAA15152; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 03:52:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id IAA25756; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 08:53:32 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id IAA01688; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 08:53:17 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 08:53:17 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <19991026070637.40024.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [203.197.191.252] From: "Vinit Kumar" To: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Subject: http proxy & tunnel differences ?? Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 00:06:34 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"Y7sDH.0.LQ.jtL5u"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/616 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Hi, RFC 2616 defines a http proxy and a tunnel. But I'am confused on how a http tunnel works. A proxy works by taking a request from a client and connecting to the origin server indicated in the request. Here the client is configured to go through the proxy. How does a http tunnel work. Is the initial connection similar ? Does a client (browser) need to configured differently when it goes through a tunnel or is it same as the configuration required when it goes through the proxy ? Are there to separate tcp connections for each request even in a tunnel ? Thanks in Advance, Regards, Vinit Kumar ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Tue Oct 26 09:31:53 1999 Received: from atlrel2.hp.com (atlrel2.hp.com [156.153.255.202]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04271 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:31:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel2.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id JAA23847; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:30:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id OAA22233; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:31:10 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id OAA03157; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:30:57 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:30:57 +0100 (BST) From: "Scott Lawrence" To: "Vinit Kumar" , Subject: RE: http proxy & tunnel differences ?? Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:27:25 -0400 Message-ID: <001401bf1fb5$d7756580$954768c0@oyster.agranat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-reply-to: <19991026070637.40024.qmail@hotmail.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"ADBm92.0.In.HqQ5u"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/617 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Vinit Kumar > To: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com > Subject: http proxy & tunnel differences ?? > A proxy works by taking a request from a client and > connecting to the origin > server indicated in the request. Here the client is configured to go > through the proxy. Actually, the client may or may not know about the proxy. > How does a http tunnel work. Is the initial connection similar ? > Does a client (browser) need to configured differently when > it goes through > a tunnel or is it same as the configuration required when it > goes through > the proxy ? Are there to separate tcp connections for each > request even in a > tunnel ? The difference is in the behavior of the intermediate system (proxy or tunnel). A tunnel just forwards the request and the response unmodified. A proxy at least adds its own identification to a Via header, and may also respond from a cache, require proxy authentication, or any number of other proxy-specific functions. -- Scott Lawrence Director of R & D Agranat Systems, Inc. Embedded Web Technology http://www.agranat.com/ From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Tue Oct 26 11:42:40 1999 Received: from atlrel1.hp.com (atlrel1.hp.com [156.153.255.210]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10541 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:42:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel1.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id LAA28770; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:40:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id QAA01118; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:41:23 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id QAA03793; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:41:07 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:41:07 +0100 (BST) To: Scott Lawrence cc: Vinit Kumar , http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Subject: Re: http proxy & tunnel differences ?? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:27:25 EDT." <001401bf1fb5$d7756580$954768c0@oyster.agranat.com> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 08:39:49 -0700 From: "Roy T. Fielding" Message-ID: <199910260839.aa19287@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"8EOob1.0.Bx.IkS5u"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/618 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com >> A proxy works by taking a request from a client and >> connecting to the origin >> server indicated in the request. Here the client is configured to go >> through the proxy. > >Actually, the client may or may not know about the proxy. The client always knows about the proxy -- that is what distinguishes a proxy from a gateway. A "reverse proxy" is a gateway. >> How does a http tunnel work. Is the initial connection similar ? >> Does a client (browser) need to configured differently when >> it goes through >> a tunnel or is it same as the configuration required when it >> goes through >> the proxy ? Are there to separate tcp connections for each >> request even in a >> tunnel ? Some tunnels are activated by a proxy request, some are simply port forwarding TCP firewalls (either on the client side or the server side, or both), and others are gateways to other servers. The important thing from HTTP's perspective is that once an intermediary becomes a tunnel, it is no longer conscious of the HTTP communication -- only of bytes being relayed from one connection to another. ....Roy From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Tue Oct 26 14:43:48 1999 Received: from palrel1.hp.com (palrel1.hp.com [156.153.255.242]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19025 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:43:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by palrel1.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DACE983; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id TAA12593; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:43:30 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id TAA04228; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:43:17 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:43:17 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: From: "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" To: "'Roy T. Fielding'" , Scott Lawrence Cc: Vinit Kumar , http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Subject: RE: http proxy & tunnel differences ?? Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:41:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"mNgsw2.0.121.5PV5u"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/619 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU] > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 8:40 AM > To: Scott Lawrence > Cc: Vinit Kumar; http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com > Subject: Re: http proxy & tunnel differences ?? > > > >Actually, the client may or may not know about the proxy. > > The client always knows about the proxy -- that is what distinguishes > a proxy from a gateway. A "reverse proxy" is a gateway. > Actually, for better or worse, the client does not always know about the proxy. Transparent proxies are quite common. Again, for better or worse, mostly worse IMHO :) > >> How does a http tunnel work. Is the initial connection similar ? > >> Does a client (browser) need to configured differently when > >> it goes through > >> a tunnel or is it same as the configuration required when it > >> goes through > >> the proxy ? Are there to separate tcp connections for each > >> request even in a > >> tunnel ? > > Some tunnels are activated by a proxy request, some are simply > port forwarding TCP firewalls (either on the client side or the > server side, or both), and others are gateways to other servers. > The important thing from HTTP's perspective is that once an > intermediary becomes a tunnel, it is no longer conscious of the > HTTP communication -- only of bytes being relayed from one connection > to another. > > ....Roy > From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Tue Oct 26 15:18:44 1999 Received: from palrel1.hp.com (palrel1.hp.com [156.153.255.242]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21139 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 15:18:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by palrel1.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C0D8A50; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 12:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id UAA15402; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:17:19 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id UAA04412; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:17:05 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:17:05 +0100 (BST) To: "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" Cc: Scott Lawrence , Vinit Kumar , http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Subject: Re: http proxy & tunnel differences ?? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:41:47 PDT." Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 12:12:10 -0700 From: "Roy T. Fielding" Message-ID: <199910261212.aa05313@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"B895N3.0.v41.nuV5u"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/620 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com >Actually, for better or worse, the client does not always >know about the proxy. Transparent proxies are quite common. Those are not transparent proxies -- they are firewall gateways, even when they occur near to the client. My use of "proxy" and "gateway" are defined in the HTTP spec, which does not always correspond to what some marketing departments call their products. ....Roy From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Tue Oct 26 17:32:56 1999 Received: from palrel1.hp.com (palrel1.hp.com [156.153.255.242]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29059 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:32:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by palrel1.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D647AD3; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:32:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id WAA22961; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:32:16 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id WAA04718; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:31:54 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:31:54 +0100 (BST) From: "Scott Lawrence" To: Cc: Subject: RE: Https proxies - was Re: http proxy & tunnel differences ?? Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:28:18 -0400 Message-ID: <000401bf1ff9$05546d00$954768c0@oyster.agranat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <19991026180703.YYD12296@webmail.worldnet.att.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"_NNrs.0.h91.AtX5u"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/621 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: douglas.e.reed@att.net > This looks like an opportunity to expand my understanding > on https proxies as well. When a client issues a CONNECT > request to a proxy, the proxy creates a connection to > the remote site, and the proxy returns an HTTP 200 > response to the client. From that point, the client > and remote site exchange data through the proxy. My > question is what is that data? Does the client have to > issue a full SSL handshake over the connection, or can > the client just send data. In other words, what happens > after the CONNECT from a client's perspective. CONNECT really just asks a proxy to create the origin server connection and then switch to tunnel mode for the pair of connections (client-proxy, proxy-origin). What the client does over it is up to the client. Usage of CONNECT is not limited to https; for https you must begin with the handshake. -- Scott Lawrence Director of R & D Agranat Systems, Inc. Embedded Web Technology http://www.agranat.com/ From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Wed Oct 27 07:54:56 1999 Received: from atlrel2.hp.com (atlrel2.hp.com [156.153.255.202]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06457 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 07:54:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel2.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id HAA28380; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 07:53:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id MAA20372; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:54:33 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id MAA13937; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:54:17 +0100 (BST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:54:17 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <19991027115335.80455.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [203.197.190.116] From: "Vinit Kumar" To: fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com, lawrence@agranat.com Subject: Re: http proxy & tunnel differences ?? Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 04:53:30 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"5w5UF2.0.hP3.fVk5u"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/622 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com > >> How does a http tunnel work. Is the initial connection similar ? > >> Does a client (browser) need to configured differently when > >> it goes through > >> a tunnel or is it same as the configuration required when it > >> goes through > >> the proxy ? Are there to separate tcp connections for each > >> request even in a > >> tunnel ? > >Some tunnels are activated by a proxy request, some are simply >port forwarding TCP firewalls (either on the client side or the >server side, or both), and others are gateways to other servers. >The important thing from HTTP's perspective is that once an >intermediary becomes a tunnel, it is no longer conscious of the >HTTP communication -- only of bytes being relayed from one connection >to another. > >....Roy For tunnels that are activated by a proxy request, A browser has to be configured to go through the proxy.So a request from a browser to a HTTP Proxy or a HTTP tunnel(activated by a request) is one and the same. What I mean is that, even if the intermediary is a HTTP tunnel, the client always talks to the tunnel thru one part of the connection and a tunnel will forward that on another connection to the ORIGIN SERVER. Even the origin servers response will come to the intermediate tunnel which get forwarded to the client on the other connection. These requests or the responses MAY contain some hop-by-hop header information such as Keep-Alive, Connection Header (close), Max-Forwards etc.. While a proxy can take care of them ,what will a should a HTTP tunnel do? A http tunnel would'nt even look at the response or at the request(apart from looking at the URL to see where the forwarding connection should be established). How does a HTTP tunnel take care of persistant connections and request pipelining? Regards, Vinit Kumar ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Fri Oct 29 09:45:22 1999 Received: from atlrel2.hp.com (atlrel2.hp.com [156.153.255.202]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24938 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:45:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by atlrel2.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id JAA19872; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:43:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id OAA09365; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:44:13 +0100 (BST) Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id OAA04853; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:43:57 +0100 (BST) Resent-Message-Id: <199910291343.OAA04832@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> Prev-Resent: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:43:51 +0100 Prev-Resent: "http-wg@hplb " Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:10:14 +0100 (BST) Old-X-Envelope-From: douglas.e.reed@att.net Tue Oct 26 19:10:12 1999 From: douglas.e.reed@att.net To: "Roy T. Fielding" Cc: Scott Lawrence , Vinit Kumar , http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Subject: Https proxies - was Re: http proxy & tunnel differences ?? Old-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:25:44 +0000 X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Oct 4 1999) X-Authenticated-Sender: douglas.e.reed@att.net Message-Id: <19991026180703.YYD12296@webmail.worldnet.att.net> Old-X-Envelope-To: http-wg Resent-To: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:43:52 +0100 Resent-From: Andy Norman X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/623 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com This looks like an opportunity to expand my understanding on https proxies as well. When a client issues a CONNECT request to a proxy, the proxy creates a connection to the remote site, and the proxy returns an HTTP 200 response to the client. From that point, the client and remote site exchange data through the proxy. My question is what is that data? Does the client have to issue a full SSL handshake over the connection, or can the client just send data. In other words, what happens after the CONNECT from a client's perspective. Regards, Doug -- ----------------------------------------------------- Doug Reed mailto:douglas.e.reed@worldnet.att.net ----------------------------------------------------- > >> A proxy works by taking a request from a client and > >> connecting to the origin > >> server indicated in the request. Here the client is configured to go > >> through the proxy. > > > >Actually, the client may or may not know about the proxy. > > The client always knows about the proxy -- that is what distinguishes > a proxy from a gateway. A "reverse proxy" is a gateway. > > >> How does a http tunnel work. Is the initial connection similar ? > >> Does a client (browser) need to configured differently when > >> it goes through > >> a tunnel or is it same as the configuration required when it > >> goes through > >> the proxy ? Are there to separate tcp connections for each > >> request even in a > >> tunnel ? > > Some tunnels are activated by a proxy request, some are simply > port forwarding TCP firewalls (either on the client side or the > server side, or both), and others are gateways to other servers. > The important thing from HTTP's perspective is that once an > intermediary becomes a tunnel, it is no longer conscious of the > HTTP communication -- only of bytes being relayed from one connection > to another. > > ....Roy > From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Sun Oct 31 01:27:58 1999 Received: from palrel3.hp.com (palrel3.hp.com [156.153.255.226]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10709 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 01:27:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com (otter.hpl.hp.com [15.144.59.2]) by palrel3.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.5tis) with ESMTP id XAA18670; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 23:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [15.144.30.127]) by otter.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3/HP-Labs Bristol Internal Mail Hub) with ESMTP id GAA17519; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 06:27:30 GMT Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id GAA28074; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 06:27:14 GMT Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 06:27:14 GMT To: Vinit Kumar cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Subject: Re: http proxy & tunnel differences ?? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 27 Oct 1999 04:53:30 PDT." <19991027115335.80455.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 23:25:50 -0700 From: "Roy T. Fielding" Message-ID: <199910302326.aa15678@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"BhzI51.0.as6.25-6u"@cuckoo> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/624 X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com >For tunnels that are activated by a proxy request, A browser has to be >configured to go through the proxy.So a request from a browser to a HTTP >Proxy or a HTTP tunnel(activated by a request) is one and the same. No, they aren't. The terms "client", "server", "proxy", "tunnel", etc., are all regarding the ROLE of the software for a particular request/response. The first request went to a proxy -- after the 200 response, it is no longer a proxy. It is not an HTTP tunnel -- it is just a tunnel, period. >What I >mean is that, even if the intermediary is a HTTP tunnel, the client always >talks to the tunnel thru one part of the connection and a tunnel will >forward that on another connection to the ORIGIN SERVER. Even the origin >servers response will come to the intermediate tunnel which get forwarded to >the client on the other connection. > >These requests or the responses MAY contain some hop-by-hop header >information such as Keep-Alive, Connection Header (close), Max-Forwards >etc.. While a proxy can take care of them ,what will a should a HTTP tunnel >do? A http tunnel would'nt even look at the response or at the request(apart >from looking at the URL to see where the forwarding connection should be >established). > >How does a HTTP tunnel take care of persistant connections and request >pipelining? RFC 2616: tunnel An intermediary program which is acting as a blind relay between two connections. Once active, a tunnel is not considered a party to the HTTP communication, though the tunnel may have been initiated by an HTTP request. The tunnel ceases to exist when both ends of the relayed connections are closed. By definition, it does not grok HTTP, therefore it doesn't take care of persistant connections and request pipelining. ....Roy