W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: CONNECT and HTTP/2.0

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:56:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfTg-vtqwrf0riPuZ+vvdGaydcgqbDiygrpe2zTVSQLkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
If CONNECT support is critical, then my recommendation would be for
y'all to make a more formal proposal and document how it's supposed to
work in the form of an I-D. Currently the details on how this would
work are somewhat muddy.

On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:35 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> This is fine for now, but FYI I consider this a blocker for Chromium to
> switch entirely to HTTP/2.0. I note that this is an existing HTTP feature
> that clients use to tunnel over HTTP proxies. As far as its use in SPDY,
> it's not merely theoretical, but has a number of actual uses:
>
> *
> http://spdylay.sourceforge.net/package_README.html#shrpx-a-reverse-proxy-for-spdy-https
> *
> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/breakwall-vpn-spdy-proxy/higommoegggcanmkapeoohipckeofpnd
> (3000~ installs)
> *
> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/spdy-proxy/hhihiednomfhmngipmplmgcngliajdnn
> (4000~ installs)
> * Corporate google.com VPN extension (not public) (widely used by Googlers)
>
> I believe these uses demonstrate that this is a desired use case to support.
> As noted, it is fairly straightforward to define a mapping of HTTP CONNECT
> over HTTP/2.0. Please see: http://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-proxy-examples
> and http://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-proxy.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Folks might notice that I've added a section on CONNECT to HTTP/2.0:
>>
>> http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/index.html#rfc.section.8.3
>>
>> This doesn't close #230, it simply documents status quo.  If we decide
>> to support CONNECT, the draft will, of course, be updated to reflect
>> that decision.  This is fairly straightforward based on the Chromium
>> documentation and the discussion thus far, we just need to decide if
>> it's valuable enough to do.
>>
>
Received on Saturday, 31 August 2013 23:57:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:15 UTC