Search squid archive

Re: Caching Google Chrome googlechromestandaloneenterprise64.msi

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2016-10-22 17:56, Antony Stone wrote:
Disclaimer: I am not a Squid developer.

On Saturday 22 October 2016 at 14:43:55, garryd@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

IMO:

The only reason I believe [explains] why core developers of Squid tend to
move HTTP violating settings from average users is to prevent possible
abuse/misuse.

I believe the reason is that one of Squid's goals is to be RFC compliant,
therefore it does not contain features which violate HTTP.

Nevertheless, I believe that core developers should publish an
_official_ explanations regarding the tendency, as it often becomes a
"center of gravity" of many topics.

Which "tendency"?

What are you asking for an official explanation of?


Antony.

Since I started use Squid, it's configuration always RFC compliant by default, _but_ there were always knobs for users to make it HTTP violent. It was in hands of users to decide how to handle a web resource. Now it is not always possible, and the topic is an evidence. For example, in terms of this topic, users can't violate this RFC statement [1]:

   A Vary field value of "*" signals that anything about the request
   might play a role in selecting the response representation, possibly
   including elements outside the message syntax (e.g., the client's
   network address).  A recipient will not be able to determine whether
   this response is appropriate for a later request without forwarding
   the request to the origin server.  A proxy MUST NOT generate a Vary
   field with a "*" value.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-7.1.4
_______________________________________________
squid-users mailing list
squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Samba]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Linux USB]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux