this probably is the most irrelevant issue of all, but as we touch this I think we should get it right (or at least know that we don't intentionally):
At https://www.varnish-cache.org/trac/wiki/VDD14Q1 we said we should change Via and now I see https://www.varnish-cache.org/trac/changeset/f89015acfc28b6fe301b22a56174e9b85785d29a So according to http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.45, Via: 1.1 varnish (v4) "varnish" is the pseudonym and "(v4)" the comment. Shouldn't we at least abstract from the one example there is in the rfc and make it Via: 1.1 varnish (Varnish/4) ? Other than that: should we respect the rfc * in that we _add_ to any existing Via (which we don't atm)? Each recipient MUST append its information such that the end result is ordered according to the sequence of forwarding applications. * should we add the option to use a real hostname instead of the pseudonym? Personally, I would vote against both to conceal internal infrastructure behind Varnish, but this is a policy decision. Technically we probably should follow the rfc? Nils _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
