W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: alt-svc and proxies

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:29:26 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUHTstLV8h-w1pjQ1k=dhy8+6q0w-bCnK_8Qy9j0hThUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Piotr Galecki <piotr_galecki@affirmednetworks.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 5 January 2016 at 17:01, Piotr Galecki
<piotr_galecki@affirmednetworks.com> wrote:
> Even though it is not required Forward Proxy could still strip Alt-Svc header since the header has no use to user agent
> and it could only have undesirable consequences if user-agent incorrectly implements alt services.

A proxy can (and likely will) strip the header field.  However, we
can't guarantee it.  That's why we have the text I cited.

Other than that, there is nothing we can do about people who decide to
ignore specs and do what they please.

> The draft does not clarify that origin server should be used for proxy selection.
> Perhaps the following would make it more clear?
> "A client SHOULD use origin, rather than alternative service, when evaluating configuration rules for proxy selection. If a proxy was selected for a given request the client SHOULD NOT directly connect to an alternative service for this request, but instead route it through that proxy."

That's probably not an improvement.  We don't want to start to create
rules about proxy selection here, which your text does.  And I
actually think that proxy selection might be improved by having an
alt-svc input.
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2016 00:29:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 March 2016 12:47:10 UTC