W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

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

From: Adam Rice <ricea@google.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:50:03 +0900
Message-ID: <CAHixhFqbw00FrGSrCRS1rK_HqEj8osRXtXpj+DtYmU=tqFyBkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
As a client, why would I add a header to my request that is going to cause
the proxy to block it? What is the benefit to the user?


On 20 August 2014 10:12, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> On 20 Aug 2014, at 11:09 am, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> That's the intent.
>
> > 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.
>
> We can't retroactively require proxies to pay attention to a header; it's
> up to them. This header is merely enabling those proxies who choose to act
> upon the header.
>
> (Yes, that corresponds to MAY, but we try to avoid overusing it, else our
> documents get filled with MAYs. It's not really a conformance requirement,
> it's just a statement.)
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 21 August 2014 04:50:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC