Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

------ Original Message ------
From: "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 10/06/2015 12:16:52 p.m.
Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on 
draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

>
>
>Recall the long discussion for March WGLC on this documents -02.
>
>That discussions made it clear that:
>a) this header value was *not* intended to describe the full protocol
>stack - only an undefined number (1..N) protocol(s) at the top of it.
>b) TLS was mandatory - except when it wasn't used. (WTF!)
>c) some values describe whole stacks, some only the leaf protocol.
>
>Consider the (multiple) cases of ALPN "http/1.1" - TLS or not?. Which 
>we
>went over exhaustively earlier.
>
>When a proxy MUST inspect the packets in order to understand what the
>header contains it becomes a waste of bytes. We just go with sniffing.
>Its way simpler.

that's the conclusion I reached also.  Will need to sniff, and ignore / 
strip the ALPN header, certainly won't be making policy decisions on it.

Given that the header is intended for intermediaries it's hard to miss 
the irony in this.

Adrien

>
>
>I stepped out of the discussions on this document when that point 
>became
>clear. If the header *did* describe the whole protocol stack, it would
>be wonderful and I'm back in again trying to add support to Squid.
>Otherwise its just a waste of time for me.
>
>
>Amos
>

Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2015 00:29:54 UTC