- From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 16:36:10 +0300 (EEST)
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Kari Hurtta <khurtta@welho.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>: (Wed Oct 5 15:43:13 2016) > And now that I read this thread, I find that the point about origins > over connections is pretty convincing. I should read all before > committing to mistakes :) > > However, perhaps there is some simplification to be salvaged. I think > that Mike's observation suggests that we can remove "tls-ports". Once > the TLS-enabled port acknowledges that it understand that it can > receive requests for http://<foo> then maybe that's enough (in > addition to it having a valid certificate, that is). > > And, while I'm on the topic, "lifetime" is a bit jarring now that we > don't have a commitment. To that end, a simpler formulation suggests > itself: > > [ "http://example.com", "http://example.com:5602" ] > > That should make Mark happy about not having to reconcile "lifetime" > with the cache freshness lifetime. I asked > >> "tls-ports" should perhaps now be "mixed-scheme-listeners" > >> giving [ "alternative-server:port" ]. because should we really say that particular alternative server / port combination for given origin supports http: -scheme over TLS. Particular alternative server / port may be reverse proxy where behind of it there is several origins on different servers. But also for particular origin there may be several alternative servers which are not equal. Simple? / Kari Hurtta
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2016 13:36:58 UTC