Re: "Secure" proxies for HTTP URIs [was: new version trusted-proxy20 draft]

On 27/02/2014 11:39 a.m., Peter Lepeska wrote:
> I was assuming the forward proxy was in a position to modify HTTP responses
> and so it would add the header. But you are right that it's probably better
> to use a 3XX status code for this. But in that case, what if the proxy is
> optional and the UA decides it wants to go direct? Or what if the UA
> doesn't support the new 3XX status code?
> 
> Adding the header to responses just says -- "Hey I'm here and if you want
> to go HTTP2 Secure Proxy mode with me feel free". Of course, a proxy could
> also require its use by blocking port 80 access.

I was trying to point out that is should be a 5xx code for the same
reasons that 511 exists as part of the 401/407/403/511 set.

So that we will have pairs of temporary/permanent redirects for the
302/303 (repeat using GET as method), 301/308 (repeat with same method),
and 305/512 (use proxy) instructions respectively.

Or perhape the see-proxy redirects are both better renumbered as 512/513
so that clients not supporting the status or even simply choosing not to
obey it will display the payload safely as an error page for users about
why their Internet is broken.

Amos

Received on Friday, 28 February 2014 06:58:55 UTC