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 11:42:24 +1000
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>
Message-Id: <8E12CAEB-56D0-4315-B92A-C1B5A0D979FC@mnot.net>
To: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>

On 23 Apr 2014, at 11:39 am, Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com> wrote:

> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> 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?​

... isn't expected to use alternative services (no matter how discovered) to establish new connections; however, existing connections through the proxy might be affected (e.g., CONNECT tunnels).

;)



--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 01:42:57 UTC

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