W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: polling re: Upgrade and CONNECT support

From: Scott Lawrence <scott-http@skrb.org>
Date: 01 May 2003 14:03:17 -0400
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <uvfwupmsa.fsf@skrb.org>

Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> writes:

> 	I have two comments, both from HTTP proxies point of view:
> 
> >    3.3      Acceptance of Upgrade Request
> >               Server Sends
> >                 101 Switching Protocols
> >                 Upgrade: TLS/1.0, HTTP/1.1
> >                 Connection: Upgrade
> 
> Please note that support for forwarding of 1xx responses in proxies is
> poor.

Upgrade is a hop-by-hop mechanism, so forwarding the 1xx response not
only is not required in this case, it would be broken.  The RFC has (I
think quite detailed) discussion of how to avoid problems with
proxies, so long as they fully support CONNECT.

> I believe the above are fairly well supported in decent proxies
> because they often must handle SSL/TLS tunneling (or terminating) as a
> part of the infrastructure. I know that Squid proxy cache, for
> example, supports CONNECT requests well.

The part I'm most curious about is whether or not they actually use
the port number specified in the request.  At one point (quite a while
ago now), I found that some proxies ignored it and always connected to
443. 

-- 
Scott Lawrence        
  Actively seeking work 
  http://skrb.org/scott/
  [ <lawrence@world.std.com> is deprecated ]
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 14:13:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:23 GMT