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 20:00:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJ_4DfT1OSBSVQs8vmGthPdhbuCoULP0ypHOTMKrah=cxOO+GQ@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 6:42 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> 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).
>

​I'm not following, which suggests that I'm missing something. :> Imagine
that a client is visiting http://server/ via the proxy, which serves up an
alt-service header suggesting server:443. The client would then initiate a
new CONNECT tunnel through the proxy to server:443.

Was that what you meant?​


> ;)


​Cheers,

Ryan​
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 03:00:57 UTC

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