- From: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 17:40:29 -0700
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJ_4DfTf1h=VhmDs3_kvHi325jhc5ZD2KN1BQRicAvc6z57SHA@mail.gmail.com>
I implemented the CONNECT over SPDY support in Chrome. Here are a couple of docs we cooked up at the time http://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-proxy-examples http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/secure-web-proxy http://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-proxy The first is the most concrete. I could write up a I-D for this, if that's the right way forward. However, it seems like the behavior of CONNECT on an HTTP/2 stream is pretty much identical to the behavior of CONNECT on an HTTP/1 connection. Cheers, Ryan On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:56 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Sunday, 1 September 2013 00:40:56 UTC