- From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 23:06:18 +0100
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 19 April 2019 22:06:50 UTC
Hi Alex, This is an interesting thread. You raise some questions that I had not thought of. It seems like a good time to tighten up language. I think that the "open a TCP connection" view is the most accurate thing here. And so the final hop, from last proxy to origin will never have a way to express such "end-to-end" headers. Proxies, in the role of client, that are configured to use a proxy would use their own user agent and authentication. I'd considered the chaining case in HTTP/2 but just taken for granted that a proxy that has it's own *HTTP proxy* configured would attempt to use it when opening TCP connections to the indicated authority. This seems like a reasonable assumption to make for HTTP proxies. I'm sure there might be other ways a proxy might choose to tunnel, like SOCKS, but that is down to local configuration. Note that HTTP/3 also defines CONNECT to behave like RFC 7540. This raises some challenges for tunnelling HTTP/3, which is one of the driving use cases in the HiNT I-D [1]. Cheers Lucas [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pardue-httpbis-http-network-tunnelling/ >
Received on Friday, 19 April 2019 22:06:50 UTC