- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 21:18:19 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 1/09/2013 5:04 p.m., Martin Thomson wrote: > On 31 August 2013 18:18, William Chan (ιζΊζ) <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? > This is exactly the sort of response I wanted to encourage. The only > problem I see with your proposed text is that it says nothing about > what forms the tunnel and its characteristics. Basically, I think > that a full edit for this needs to take a good hard look at 2817. > This is a good start, but there's a bit more required. > > Note that changing what colon-headers are required, especially > prohibiting :scheme is going to be a little bit of a surprise to some. > (And it will compress less well.) Can we just say that its value is > ignored instead? I dont think so. It makes sense to send it with empty value for authority-form URI. Or to permit it to contain a scheme name if teh :host header is missing a po So both of these requests connect a tunne to example.com on port 443: :method CONNECT :scheme :host example.com:443 :path , :method CONNECT :scheme HTTPS :host example.com :path If :path is left to be optional values it permits clients to either omit it when mapping HTTP/1->HTTP/2. Or to send a hint at what path the tunnel will be fetching. This is useful for the firewalls and gateways which currently are forced to spoof and decrypt the SSL before allowing/rejecting the traffic. THey will no longer be foreced to touch the encryption to manage the authorizations. Amos
Received on Sunday, 1 September 2013 09:18:45 UTC