Re: CONNECT and HTTP/2.0

Looks good to me, with one question.  What is the "authority-form of the
request-target of CONNECT requests"?


On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 6:18 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

> I suck at editorial stuff so I expect people to object to my wording, but
> here's some proposed text (I'd be happy to put together a pull request
> too)? Does this clarify whatever you find muddy?
>
> =====
>
> 8.3 The CONNECT method
>
> The HTTP pseudo-method CONNECT [RFC2817] is used to convert an HTTP/1.1
> connection into a tunnel to a remote host. CONNECT is primarily used with
> HTTP proxies to established a TLS session with a server for the purposes of
> interacting with https resources.
>
> In HTTP/2.0, the CONNECT method is used to establish a tunnel over a
> single HTTP/2.0 stream to a remote host. The HTTP header mapping works as
> mostly as defined in 8.1.2.1, with a few differences. Specifically:
> * The :method header value is CONNECT
> * The :scheme header field MUST be omitted.
> * The :host header MAY be sent. It exists for backwards compatibility with
> HTTP/1.1 implementations where the Host header may not match the host
> indicated in the authority specified in the request-target of the CONNECT
> request.
> * The :path header value contains the authority-form of the request-target
> of CONNECT requests.
>
> =====
>
> I note that it's tempting to omit the :host header, but my primary concern
> is that it may introduce backwards compatibility issues in HTTP/1=>HTTP/2
> gateways, as I don't know how HTTP/1 implementations currently handle the
> case where the Host header does not match the host specified in the
> request-target of CONNECT requests.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 5:51 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A pull request with edits against the current draft would work too :-)
>> On Aug 31, 2013 5:40 PM, "Ryan Hamilton" <rch@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>