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

Re: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?

From: <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:33:42 -0400
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <979B03FA-B62A-4988-A58F-E23E08AADE57@gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
For encrypted traffic, forward proxies are functionally bypassed and most HTTP/2 traffic will be encrypted. When they do see the rare plaintext attempt to upgrade to HTTP/2, proxies can simply strip the header and prevent it. Therefore proxies have little motivation to implement it. HTTP/2 with mandatory TLS (the Google and Mozilla position) is an attempt to obsolete forward proxies, which explains why lack of proxy support in HTTP/2.0 is not a blocking issue to go to last call.



On Jun 21, 2014, at 12:52 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

> In message <CABkgnnX9+sf=1RmgyK498ZQwDX+tbAVinck4wpzUgTt4RyH4Cw@mail.gmail.com>
> , Martin Thomson writes:
>> We killed it so that we could avoid having to talk about it any more.
>> That worked out well, didn't it?
> I'm increasingly getting the feeling that we have people who like
> the HTTP/2.0 draft and people who work with proxies, and that those
> two sets are almost exclusive ?
> I would be interesting to see what a straw-poll of these two
> questions would show:
> A)  I think HTTP/2.0 is ready for last call		YES/NO
> B)  My primary HTTP/2.0 interest is proxy technology	YES/NO
> -- 
> Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 21:34:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC