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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:12:42 +1000
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <11A68725-9F70-4B95-9483-EA3F37B6FC9B@mnot.net>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>

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

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