W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade

From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:01:09 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimi5HL56PD9gLHUWs=mcbV3Eaz=GOsK38sxPevb@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>, Hybi HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2010, at 1:30 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 11/26/2010 6:55 AM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>>>
>>> And do you get similar feeling to think about using the CONNECT method
>>> to establish tunnels for arbitrary protocols?
>>
>> CONNECT suffers from the same issues you identify is deploying a new port.
>> Namely, http servers will reject those requests.  Leveraging CONNECT
>> successfully would require additional HTTP-level authentication to identify
>> users and prevent abuse (as most proxies do).  Restructuring the internet,
>> whether it is adding a new port to unblock, or permitting specific classes
>> of CONNECT traffic, would be a similar battle.
>
> Perhaps more to the point, CONNECT is a method that is only allowed to be
> sent to a client-side proxy server.  Deliberately sending it in other
> HTTP messages would be a violation of its method semantics and the
> HTTP/1.1 syntax (because its unusual target syntax is only allowed
> when sent to a proxy).

That seems like a matter of perspective.  When opening a connection to
a WebSocket server, can one not view the server as a proxy sever?

Adam
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:02:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:33 GMT