W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: Header addition with HTTP 2.0

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:32:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcKdU5Av88JjGWmRsy+5uXCHhO3C+=70KCJxdtaDAduqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vimala Tadepalli <vimla.c@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Most HTTP2 implementations will likely be over TLS, so you'll find it
difficult to insert anything.
If you have plaintext access, you can do anything, and yes, using that
operation would make the most sense.

imho, such behavior should be avoided, if possible.
-=R

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Vimala Tadepalli <vimla.c@gmail.com> wrote:

> I should be using "Literal Header Field never Indexed" to add a new
> header?
> Thanks
> Vimala
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> HTTP2 is semantically the same.
>> It'd depend on the implementation of the firewall, rather than anything
>> else.
>>
>> -=R
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Vimala Tadepalli <vimla.c@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I work on a firewall, where we need to add a header to the client
>>> request going to the server.
>>>
>>> Topology is
>>>
>>> Client -------> Firewall -------> Servers
>>>
>>> Ex: Suppose a request is going to youtube, a new header "
>>> X-YouTube-Edu-Filter" has to be added to the request.
>>>
>>> In HTTP 1.0/1.1, this is feasible
>>> I tried with SPDY as well and Server did accept the request and
>>> redirected accordingly.
>>>
>>> In HTTP 2.0, can i do this?
>>> If a header is added at firewall, client and server dynamic tables might
>>> go out of sync. Will it cause any issues?
>>>
>>> Any suggestion is greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Vimala
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 00:32:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:43 UTC