Re: CONNECT and HTTP/2.0

I'll second Will's comments.. this is anything but theoretical.

There is also a large number of users relying on Chrome + node-spdyproxy:
https://github.com/igrigorik/node-spdyproxy/.


On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:35 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

> This is fine for now, but FYI I consider this a blocker for Chromium to
> switch entirely to HTTP/2.0. I note that this is an existing HTTP feature
> that clients use to tunnel over HTTP proxies. As far as its use in SPDY,
> it's not merely theoretical, but has a number of actual uses:
>
> *
> http://spdylay.sourceforge.net/package_README.html#shrpx-a-reverse-proxy-for-spdy-https
> *
> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/breakwall-vpn-spdy-proxy/higommoegggcanmkapeoohipckeofpnd(3000~ installs)
> *
> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/spdy-proxy/hhihiednomfhmngipmplmgcngliajdnn(4000~ installs)
> * Corporate google.com VPN extension (not public) (widely used by
> Googlers)
>
> I believe these uses demonstrate that this is a desired use case to
> support. As noted, it is fairly straightforward to define a mapping of HTTP
> CONNECT over HTTP/2.0. Please see:
> http://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-proxy-examples and
> http://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-proxy.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Folks might notice that I've added a section on CONNECT to HTTP/2.0:
>>
>> http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/index.html#rfc.section.8.3
>>
>> This doesn't close #230, it simply documents status quo.  If we decide
>> to support CONNECT, the draft will, of course, be updated to reflect
>> that decision.  This is fairly straightforward based on the Chromium
>> documentation and the discussion thus far, we just need to decide if
>> it's valuable enough to do.
>>
>>
>