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

Re: CONNECT and HTTP/2.0

From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 17:56:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CABaLYCuRVqC-=4ZibQ755dBOT=Uro47SQ-AdKp9C1zKzGByxrg@mail.gmail.com>
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>
For others reading, the bug martin cites is here:
https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/230

Martin - I believe the current text you have proposed would break the web.
 You'd no longer be able to CONNECT at all - if you happened to land at a
2.0 server, it would bounce you, and that is not backward compatible.  You
have no way, at this stage of negotiation, to know whether the server is
1.1 or 2.0.

I think its pretty safe to ignore the version header here.

Mike



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 00:56:48 UTC

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