On 11/1/22 1:24 PM, squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
No I meant W3C. Back in the before times things were a bit messy.
Hum. I have more questions than answers. I'm not aware of W3C ever assigning ports. I thought it was /always/ IANA.
Indeed, thus we cannot register it with IEFT/IANA now. The IANA http-alt port would probably be best if we did go official.
ACK
You see my point I hope. A gateway proxy that returns an error to *every* request is not very good.
Except it's not "/ever/ /request/" It's "/every/ /request/ /of/ /a/ /specific/ /type/" where type is an HTTP version.
What does CloudFlare or any of the other big proxy services or even other proxy applications do if you send them an HTTP/1.0 or even HTTP/0.9 request without the associated Host: header?
There is no "configured proxy" for this use-case.Those are the two most/extremely common instances of the problematic use-cases. All implicit use of proxy (or gateway) have the same issue.
How common is the (network) transparent / intercepting / implicit use of Squid (or any proxy for that matter)?
All of the installs that I've worked on (both as a user and as an administrator) have been explicit / non-transparent.
I think you are getting stuck with the subtle difference between "use for case X" and "use by default".ANY port number can be used for *some* use-case(s).
Sure.
"by default" has to work for *all* use-cases.
I disagree.
Note that you are now having to add a non-default port "8080" and path "/" to the URL to make it valid/accepted by the Browser.
You were already specifying the non-default-http port via the "http-alt://" scheme in your example.
Clients speaking HTTP origin-form (the http:// scheme) are not permitted to request tunnels or equivalent gateway services. They can only ask for resource representations.
I question the veracity of that. Mostly around said client's use of an explicit proxy.
Port is just a number, it can be anything *IF* it is made explicit.The scheme determines what protocol syntax is being spoken and thus what restrictions and/or requirements are.... and so the protocol for talking to a webcache service is http-alt://.Whose default port is not 80 nor 443 for all the same reasons why Squid default listening port is 3128.If we wanted to we could easily switch Squid default port to http-alt/8080 without causing technical issues. But it would be annoying to update all the existing documentation around the Internet, so not worth the effort changing now.Ditto. Though the legacy install base has a long long long tail. 26 years after HTTP/1.0 came out and HTTP/0.9 still has use-cases alive.
Where is HTTP/0.9 still being used?
Decreasing, but still a potentially significant amount of traffic seen by Squid in general.
Can you, or anyone else, quantify what "a potentially significant amount of traffic" is?
Do these cases *really* /need/ to be covered by the /default/ configuration? Or can they be addressed by a variation from the default configuration?
Ah, if you have been treating it like an irrelevant elephant that is your confusion. The "but not always" is a critical detail in the puzzle - its side-effects are the answer to your initial question of *why* Squid defaults to X instead of 80/443.
I have no problems using non-default for the "but not always" configurations.
-- Grant. . . . unix || die
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
