Re: New tunnel protocol

Hi all.. happy new year!

one comment on this.  It seems this header is intended to be used only 
when the next protocol is actually TLS, and the one after that is the 
one that is identified by this header.

Is it really intended to limit this header to only be used when the next 
protocol is TLS?   It seems like it could be quite useful for other 
cases as well, and it is very common to use CONNECT tunnels for other 
protocols without TLS.

I think there could be some confusion around this, especially since the 
header name does not indicate such a restriction.



------ Original Message ------
From: "Mark Nottingham" <>
To: "Martin Thomson" <>
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <>
Sent: 21/01/2015 5:59:00 p.m.
Subject: Re: New tunnel protocol

>Thanks, Martin.
>I notice that we don't have any open issues for this document. Pending 
>Martin's formatting changes, I'd like to start thinking about WGLC for 
>this document.
>>  On 20 Jan 2015, at 4:09 pm, Martin Thomson <> 
>>  I've revised the draft.
>>  Changes are largely cosmetic. The document has more complete
>>  boilerplate, including an IANA considerations section.
>>  I also created some bad formatting. I'm correcting that in the
>>  editor's copy, but won't burden people with too many updates at once.
>Mark Nottingham

Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2015 22:02:38 UTC