- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 11:05:36 +1000
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 1 Jun 2015, at 12:12 pm, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > > On 1/06/2015 1:01 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote: >> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/62> >> >> The current suggestion in the issue (made by me) is to add something like this to the spec: >> >> "Clients configured to use a proxy SHOULD NOT use alternative services." >> >> Comments? > > +1. Thinking about it a bit more, I'd actually modify that proposal slightly: "A client configured to use a proxy for a given request SHOULD NOT send it to an alternative service, but instead use that proxy." Make sense? > The ALTSVC frame is explicitly hop-by-hop already. This helps to bring > the HTTP/1 header behaviour in line with that. > > A proxy will not be emitting ALTSVC frames. Nor should it be relaying > Alt-Svc headers, unless its a legacy install treating them as unknown > and relaying blindly. > > I would hope for the HTTP/1 header to also be explicitly mentioned as > hop-by-hop as well with a proxy / gateway requirement to SHOULD erase > where possible on forwarding, or if received from an upstream proxy. That seems reasonable, but I want to make sure we have agreement on that; there may be scenarios where a client would discover alternative services through a proxy, and then use them later (e.g., when the proxy isn't configured, or on a request that it's not configured for through something like proxy.pac). I've opened <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/83> to track. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 8 June 2015 01:06:07 UTC