- From: Albert Lunde <atlunde@panix.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 12:19:24 -0600
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Lucas Pardue <Lucas.Pardue@bbc.co.uk>
On 2/4/2018 11:02 AM, Ian Swett wrote:
> This seems generally useful, but are there enough motivating use cases?
>
> On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com
> <mailto:bemasc@google.com>> wrote:
>
> In my view, a UDP counterpart to CONNECT ought to work not only for
> HTTP/QUIC but also for WebRTC. That means that it should have the
> ability to receive packets from unexpected sources, as the remote
> party's effective address may not be known in advance. I don't know
> how to map that semantic into HTTP/2 frames.
CONNECT is still an HTTP method which has some notion of a stream
transport, though it's kind of a tunnel.
SOCKS5 is a protocol for proxy transport of data which also supports
UDP, and isn't tied to HTTP headers and framing:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1928
it might be better suited to arbitrary traffic
--
Albert Lunde albert-lunde@northwestern.edu
atlunde@panix.com (address for personal mail)
Received on Sunday, 4 February 2018 18:19:48 UTC