Re: Alt-Svc #62: proxies

On 12.06.2015 05:38, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 12 Jun 2015, at 10:07 am, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
>> On 12/06/2015 8:44 a.m., Martin Thomson wrote:
>>> On 11 June 2015 at 08:54, Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com> wrote:
>>>> 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).
>>> Do we consider the proxy to be configured for the request or the connection?
>>>
>>> I know that sophistry, but maybe it makes sense to invent that
>>> distinction for this purpose.
>> I dont think it matters.
>>
>> The client UA has chosen to use www.service.com:443 and its configured
>> to use the proxy when sending requests to that authority. Whether it
>> re-uses the same connection or creates another CONNECT through the proxy
>> it should still be following the configured next-hop.
>>
>> Thats usually the whole point of such configuration existing at all.
> In that spirit:
>
> "A client configured to use a proxy for a given request SHOULD NOT directly connect to an alternative service for it, but instead route it through that proxy."
>
In that spirit the client should use the alternate service as URL when 
looking up which proxy to use in a PAC file. But what is the 
corresponding URL to use, e.g. should http://www.service.com:443/, 
https://www.service.com/ or 
http_opportunistic_security://www.service.com/ be used?

Regards,
Roland

Received on Friday, 12 June 2015 08:32:49 UTC