Re: SSL Tunneling; Informational RFC; Last call?

> Forwarding note from: Martin Presler-Marshall <>
> Tue, 16 Sep 1997 11:24:06 -0400
>  There is, I hope, one bug in this draft. In section 6, an example
> is given of a non-200 return code (specifically, a 407) from the
> proxy. After the plaintext HTTP header, the draft says that "...SSL
> data..." will be sent.

You're right, that's an error.  I'll have that changed.

>  This then begs the question of whether the "200 OK" response to a
> CONNECT request should include a content-type (our tunneling
> implementation does not currently send one). I think that it should,
> and a new MIME type like "application/tunnel" should be sent. This
> is obviously not a requirement, but would be nice for completeness.

I have nothing against a MIME type, but I think that this RFC should
document the current behavior, and currently there is no MIME type.

Ari Luotonen, Mail-Stop MV-061		Opinions my own, not Netscape's.
Netscape Communications Corp.
501 East Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043, USA		Netscape Proxy Server Development

Received on Tuesday, 16 September 1997 12:27:03 UTC