W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:32:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXA7wDBe-fM4aSYje+L+uOG816SHBztN=L3hHPYmJPkBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 17 April 2014 15:22, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org> wrote:
> 2) What happens for clients talking HTTP/2 to a proxy with the proxy talking
> HTTP/2 to the origin?  Would an ALTSVC frame referencing a different server
> and using TLS get passed through meaning that the client needs to now
> CONNECT through to do TLS?

ALTSVC frames need to be consumed, not passed through.  If the proxy
did that, then it's responsible for the consequences.  But I don't see
how this would fail.

> 3) What happens with clients talking HTTP/1 to a proxy when the proxy is
> talking HTTP/2 to the origin and gets an ALTSVC frame pointing to a
> different host?  Presumably the proxy needs to drop it?

Same answer as above.

The real concern here is the Alt-Svc header field, which will (likely)
be passed the whole way through.  CDNs should probably remove the
header field and maybe add their own, since they either act as a new
origin server or gateway.  Proxies might want to drop the header field
in the case where they aren't able to (or don't want to) support the
alternative.
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2014 22:33:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC