- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 01:07:16 +1100
- To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
- Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Kari Hurtta <khurtta@welho.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 6 October 2016 at 00:36, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> wrote: >> >> "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. I interpreted that as: { "http://example.com": { "mixed-scheme-listeners": [ "example.net:767", "example.com:3324" ] }, "http://other.example.com" { ... } } This is saying that "http://example.com" is served (in addition to the cleartext version) on those alternatives. Whereas I was suggesting just taking the keys from the top-level object: [ "https://example.com", "http://other.example.com" ] But I realize that this information is better obtained more simply because you need to make a request for a .wk resource on every origin you are interested in: GET http://example.com/.well-known/http-opportunistic HTTP/1.1 Host: example.com 200 OK Content-Length: 0 Cache-Control: max-age=123 > 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. Not sure that I follow: are you suggesting that the .wk resource would advertise the other origins, or that we need some sort of additional protection?
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2016 14:08:04 UTC