Via

[Nils Goroll]

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