- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:12:12 +1100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On 29 Jan 2015, at 4:59 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 28 January 2015 at 02:36, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: >> >> That's why I think it's reasonable to consider that, as a first step, we >> could have something which satisfies exactly what Martin needs (eg: repeat >> in a header field what is supposed to be advertised in the TLS ALPN), and >> to ensure that the name of this header doesn't make it difficult to later >> add information about what is being tunnelled (eg: TLS vs VPN vs anything >> else). > > I have no objection to other signals, certainly. > > The other signals are much harder to conceptualize. I'm not opposed > to exposing more information if it can be justified and worked into a > solution. If someone has a need, they should develop a solution > around that need and propose it. Perhaps the draft could include more about intended use cases in the introduction and/or header definition. I think the confusion we've seen is completely understandable, since it *looks* like something that can be used to parse what happens in the tunnel. Another name for the header might (or might not) help too. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 2 February 2015 05:12:48 UTC