- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:12:42 +1000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 22 Apr 2014, at 4:12 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 April 2014 23:36, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: >> The draft wording however is not limited to "proxies". Which was my >> initial report of there being a problem. > > Mark already suggested that the wording needed to be changed from > "intermediary" to "proxy". I think that suffices. It might also be helpful to note that a client with a configured proxy isn't expected to use alternative services (no matter how discovered). >> The problem is interaction of the Alt-Svc HTTP/1 header since it is >> end-to-end but places semantics of: >> >> case A) >> bypassing an entire chain of proxies by diverting the client to an >> entire alternate path. >> >> case B) >> breaking connectivity, by informing the client about an Alt-Svc which >> is impossibel for it to contact. > > Neither is an issue because Alt-Svc expressly states that: > > "The client is not required to block requests; the origin's connection > can be used until the alternative connection is established." > > That means that if the new path doesn't work (network policy, broken > header, or for any reason...), then the existing connection is good. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 01:25:41 UTC