- From: Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB/Cambridge) <thomas.fossati@nokia.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 19:23:33 +0000
- To: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>, Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
- CC: Lucas Pardue <Lucas.Pardue@bbc.co.uk>, "ilariliusvaara@welho.com" <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB/Cambridge)" <thomas.fossati@nokia.com>
On 04/02/2018, 18:13, "Ben Schwartz" <bemasc@google.com> wrote: > I see two: HTTP/QUIC and WebRTC. In both cases, connecting through an > HTTP proxy currently prevents UDP communication with the destination, > impairing performance and compatibility. Not super sure, but another use case that seems to map quite naturally is the analogue of a TCP proxy (for example, as seen in the mobile network) with QUIC as the transport, and explicit rather than implicit/bumped-in-the-wire. It looks like it'd be possible for an end user to have one security association to the QUIC transport proxy and a separate one with the other QUIC end that gets tunnelled through the proxy. Is my reading correct? Cheers, thanks
Received on Sunday, 4 February 2018 19:23:59 UTC