- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:42:24 +1000
- To: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 23 Apr 2014, at 11:39 am, Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > On 22 Apr 2014, at 4:12 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 19 April 2014 23:36, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > >> The draft wording however is not limited to "proxies". Which was my > >> initial report of there being a problem. > > > > Mark already suggested that the wording needed to be changed from > > "intermediary" to "proxy". I think that suffices. > > It might also be helpful to note that a client with a configured proxy isn't expected to use alternative services (no matter how discovered). > > That doesn't sound right to me. Couldn't the client use a CONNECT tunnel to reach the alternate service? If the alternate service is HTTP/2, and the main service is HTTP/1, then there could be a big performance win from using the alternate service through the proxy, wouldn't there? ... isn't expected to use alternative services (no matter how discovered) to establish new connections; however, existing connections through the proxy might be affected (e.g., CONNECT tunnels). ;) -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 01:42:57 UTC