- From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 21:47:30 +0300
- To: Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 02:20:38PM -0400, Van Catha wrote: > The proxy problem circles around back to the implementation. Perhaps a > header in the request could be included saying to not cache anything, if > the proxy caches things well its the proxies fault. Also if the proxy is > not aware of WebSocket2 this should not matter, the proxies job is to > forward everything as it came. As long as the proxy would forward the > websocket2-[version|compression] headers to the server and forward what the > server replies with there should be no problems. Again if the proxy is > "smart" and decides to cache the response (which did not specify any > headers related to caching) its the proxies fault. To be more direct the > response may be forced to include headers specifically instructing nothing > should be cached. Does this work? Is there request header to request no caching? There is certainly a response header to request no caching. Or perhaps use a dedicated method? It would seem pretty obivous that if you see a unknown method, you shouldn't assume very much about what it is. > I am thinking using SETTINGS frames would be too complex, as that would > require baking WebSocket2 directly into HTTP/2, the way it is now, > WebSocket2 should run over HTTP/2 with minimal resistance since we do not > introduce new settings or HTTP/2 frame types. HTTP/2 was designed from the > very beginning to not support 2 way streaming like websocket provides > currently for HTTP/1.1. I think the resistance would be great if adding > WebSocket2 requires adding to the actual HTTP/2 specification. Unfortunately, HTTP/2 does not have strict scheme handling like I proposed. With it, one could just have directly used the wss scheme (or ws for oppsec) and be done with it. > If origin server does not know about WebSocket2 and the request succeeds > that is indeed a problem. Perhaps the server can reply with the error > header always like websocket2-error: okay; in the case when the WebSocket2 > negotation was a success. This way an origin server without WebSocket2 will > reply with 200, and the client will see there is no websocket2-error: okay; > header and promptly notify the client that WebSocket2 negotiation failed. It seems to me that using https:// GET here is rather dangerous. Even with extra custom headers. -Ilari
Received on Saturday, 1 October 2016 18:48:04 UTC