- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 21:25:31 +0200
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@mozilla.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 12:06:36PM -0700, Roberto Peon wrote: > Does anyone recall why 6066 has no SNI for IP literals? (It could be an > empty SNI field or the SNI could indicate the IP literal)? I find it surprizing as well, given that NAT/reverse proxy is very common in front of servers and that the address specified in the URL bar (hence in the SNI if it were sent) would be authoritative and would not necessarily match the one the server sees on the local socket. Willy
Received on Friday, 3 April 2015 19:25:58 UTC