- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:13:43 -0700
- To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:05 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > http://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-proxy > Internet-Draft, please? - James > The CONNECT tunnel is implemented as Tatsuhiro-san described (the mapping is > admittedly unclean). There are some complexities when you tunnel SPDY over > SPDY due to multiplexing and flow control, but otherwise I think the rest is > relatively straightforward, and indeed there are open source SPDY proxy > implementations that support this like Tatsuhiro-san's. > > On Aug 13, 2013 11:51 PM, "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I mean that, at some point, we ought to sit down and figure out a >> better approach to handling this case because using CONNECT as >> currently defined is really not a great fit and I'd rather not try to >> just shoe horn something in with a bunch of new exception cases. If >> Google has this working, please provide a detailed description on list >> of what's being done so we can evaluate it.
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 22:14:30 UTC