- From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 12:19:58 +0000
- To: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALGR9obfsXgfCytfoXvoHn-Gmr21yNsRaH=tBs2wZZn6TxU4YQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi David On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 11:05 AM David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Howdy HTTP enthusiasts, > > As we're adding support for CONNECT-UDP in Chrome, we're having to answer > the related question "ok I know which proxy I want to use, but do I use TCP > or QUIC?". > > Right now, the only mechanisms we have to discover HTTP/3 support are > Alt-Svc and the HTTPS RR. Both of these are defined in terms of origin*. > CONNECT-UDP is defined in terms of origin so we're in good shape there. > Same story for connect-tcp > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-connect-tcp/>. But > for CONNECT we're in a weird spot. In CONNECT, there is no origin (or if > there is, it applies to the target destination, not to the proxy). So it > doesn't quite feel right for a proxy to send the Alt-Svc header on the > response to a CONNECT request. Similarly, I'm not sure that if I get an > HTTPS RR for the proxy hostname I'm allowed to use it for CONNECT. So > there's no great way to know that a CONNECT proxy supports HTTP/3. So if a > PAC file tells the browser to use "HTTPS proxy.example.org:443" then it's > not clear to me how the browser should figure out if it can use HTTP/3. > Here are some options: > > 1) Send the first CONNECT over HTTP/1 or 2, pretend that use of Alt-Svc > applies to the proxy > 2) Query the HTTPS DNS RR and pretend that it applies to the proxy > 3) Send an OPTIONS * request to the proxy and look for Alt-Svc > 4) Try HTTP/3 for the first CONNECT request and fallback to TCP if > anything fails (happy eyeballs style) > 5) Create a new PAC script verb that means connect-tcp/connect-udp > 6) Create a new PAC script verb that means HTTP/3 > For coverage, could we also add 7) Proxy sends ALTSVC frame on stream 0 with an origin set to self (e.g. proxy.example.org with h3=":443") [1] > None of these feel like great solutions. Does anyone have thoughts? > I agree they don't feel that great. Especially when the WG has been discussing reducing use of Alt-Svc [2]. Cheers Lucas [1] - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7838#section-4 [2] - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomson-httpbis-alt-svcb/01/
Received on Monday, 6 November 2023 12:20:16 UTC