Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt

Mark,

thanks for those links.

I think the document itself needs to be a bit stronger on the intended
usage of the header.  Currently it reads that this header field can be sent
by a client and that it can be ignored by the proxy.  Perhaps it should be
little bit stronger and say that a proxy MAY (SHOULD?) consider this header
when deciding to create a tunnel or not.

cheers








On 20 August 2014 10:45, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> See:
>
> https://httpwg.github.io/wg-materials/ietf90/IETF90_draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol.pdf
>
> https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/gh-pages/ietf90/minutes.md#draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On 20 Aug 2014, at 10:40 am, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
>
> > Mark,
> >
> > Is there a specific use-case motivating this additional header?   ie are
> there situations that a proxy can use this to do more than just log/debug a
> tunnel?
> >
> > I'm certainly not opposed to having the additional information that this
> header provides, but I'd like to know what advantage there is for a client
> to include the header.  If there is none, then it is not likely to be sent.
> >
> > cheers
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
> > http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that
> scales
> > http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>


-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.