- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:55:58 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
- CC: "Diego R. Lopez" <diego@tid.es>, Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>, Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>, "<ietf-http-wg@w3.org>" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-06-17 03:32, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Right.
>
> I think the most obvious way to attack this is to discuss whether the OE/OS (whatever we end up calling it) draft might specify how UAs MUST/SHOULD/MAY behave when sending a http:// request to a *configured* proxy (when the UA supports OE).
>
> I don't yet understand the need for different ALPN tokens, cert attributes, etc., unless people are also thinking about non-configured ("transparent") proxies -- which this WG have explicitly and deliberately *not* codified for a long, long time -- or expanding this scheme to also cover HTTPS URIs...
>
> Cheers,
Well, this WG hasn't really worked on proxies at all, so picking on that
specific aspect seems to be a bit far-fetched.
Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2014 05:58:26 UTC