- From: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:54:21 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJ_4DfR0Mp38rc179t_7+-SD+_OicGZTRPqVSH6jjzaZhHqN4g@mail.gmail.com>
I'm not sure about this. Consider the case where a client is configured to use proxy.example.com for all request. The client wants to request https://www.service.com/. To do this, the browser connects to the proxy and issues a CONNECT request, resulting in a TLS handshake and an HTTP/2 connection (via the proxy) to ww.service.com:443. Now, lets say that the client wants to request https://mail.service.com. Previously, mail.service.com advertised www.service.com:443 as an alternative service. Should not the client be able to use the existing (tunneled through the proxy) connection to www.service.com:443? The TLS connection *is* end-to-end in this case (though the underlying TPC connection is not). On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > Marked as editor-ready. > > > > On 8 Jun 2015, at 10:51 pm, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> > wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > 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? > > > > > > yes.. because "clients configured to use a proxy" is not really a global > state for the client. > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > >
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2015 15:54:53 UTC