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

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

From: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:39:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJ_4DfSMzUX-+==VhPgT3HTVy9Gt=2V3nvcnYu+X2t1BXQi91w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> 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).

​That doesn't sound right to me. Couldn't the client use a CONNECT tunnel
to reach the alternate service? If the alternate service is HTTP/2, and the
main service is HTTP/1, then there could be a big performance win from
using the alternate service through the proxy, wouldn't there?​
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 01:40:32 UTC

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