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