- From: Francesco Chemolli <kinkie@squid-cache.org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 19:13:24 +0200
- To: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com> wrote: > Howdy Folks, > > I'm curious how Alt-Svc is expect to work with Proxy PAC files. Consider the > scenario where http://www.example.com/ has an Alt-Svc that specified http/2 > on mail.example.com:443. When the browser decides to make an http/2 (over > TLS) connection to mail.example.com, on behalf of http://www.example.com, > what URL and host should the browser pass to the PAC file's > FindProxyForURL() method? > > I can argue both cases. > > * It should pass in the requested url (http://www.example.com/) because that > is the URL being requested. There is no other URL. > * It should pass in a pseudo url (https://mail.exmaple.com/) because, for > example, access to mail.example.com may well requires use of a proxy to > access. By passing in the request URL, the PAC file does not have the > opportunity to send the connection to the correct proxy. > > Thoughts? Hi Ryan, good point. I favor the second option, as in current corporate environments (the main users of pacfiles, I expect) different destinations may require very different forwarding paths, so it's best to have the earliest possible decision point. I also suggest considering a third, longer-term option: seeking an agreement among impementors about modernizing (and possibly standardizing) the pac-file API. -- Francesco Chemolli Squid Developer
Received on Friday, 3 April 2015 17:14:13 UTC