- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 01:07:16 +1100
- To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
- Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Kari Hurtta <khurtta@welho.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 6 October 2016 at 00:36, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> wrote:
>> >> "tls-ports" should perhaps now be "mixed-scheme-listeners"
>> >> giving [ "alternative-server:port" ].
>
> because should we really say that particular alternative server / port
> combination for given origin supports http: -scheme over TLS.
I interpreted that as:
{ "http://example.com": {
"mixed-scheme-listeners": [ "example.net:767", "example.com:3324" ]
},
"http://other.example.com" { ... }
}
This is saying that "http://example.com" is served (in addition to the
cleartext version) on those alternatives.
Whereas I was suggesting just taking the keys from the top-level object:
[ "https://example.com", "http://other.example.com" ]
But I realize that this information is better obtained more simply
because you need to make a request for a .wk resource on every origin
you are interested in:
GET http://example.com/.well-known/http-opportunistic HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
200 OK
Content-Length: 0
Cache-Control: max-age=123
> Particular alternative server / port may be reverse proxy
> where behind of it there is several origins on different servers.
>
> But also for particular origin there may be several
> alternative servers which are not equal.
Not sure that I follow: are you suggesting that the .wk resource would
advertise the other origins, or that we need some sort of additional
protection?
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2016 14:08:04 UTC