On 20/04/2013, at 5:21 PM, David Morris <dwm(_at_)xpasc(_dot_)com> wrote:
I don't care about MUST, but I think the Via header can be useful for
problem determination. A smart content server could also adjust for
a detected accelerator and/or transcoder ... perhaps by avoiding
optimizations dependant on a direct connection and byte/byte transfer
between the client and the server.
So I'm very much in favor of keeping the Via: header.
Definitely not talking about getting rid of it. The (only, specific) point here
is whether a gateway that doesn't add Via to responses should be called
non-conformant.
Personally, I think it should be a MUST for proxies, in both directions.
However, for a gateway, it either shouldn't be a requirement at all (for
responses), or it should be a SHOULD with a get-out clause for reasons of
security (along with a note that they'll need to accept responsibility for any
issues caused by omitting Via). Still should probable be a MUST for requests
from gateways.
Cheers,
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/