- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:49:13 -0700
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 3 September 2014 13:32, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > A slight (editorial) suggestion: > > Connections that are made to an origin server, either directly or > through a tunnel created using the <xref target="CONNECT">CONNECT method</xref>, > MAY be reused for requests with different URI authority components > if that origin server is also <xref target="authority">authoritative</xref> > for those other authority components. Thanks. > though this begs the question: why is this a MAY instead of a > MUST NOT ... unless X? Mainly because they are basically the same in effect, but a positively worded statements is easier to comprehend. A MUST NOT would require two exclusions: one for connections directly to proxies (easy) and the other for origin servers that offer credentials that are valid for the other domain. It seems like a net zero gain. > First sentence seems a bit garbled. That's because I botched up the copy paste in my haste. The text I have is instead For "https" resources, connection reuse additionally depends on having a certificate that is valid for the host in the URI. A server might offer a certificate [...] > I suggest using "origin server" here instead of server. Thanks. >> ADD: >> + A client that is configured to use a proxy directs >> requests to that proxy through a >> + single connection. That is, all requests sent via a >> proxy reuse the connection to the >> + proxy. > > In general, I don't think the protocol should specify such things. > A proxy might not even be using HTTP to its clients, for example. Would limiting the scope to a proxy *using HTTP/2* suffice? I think that this is still of some use.
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 20:49:41 UTC