IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Header addition with HTTP 2.0

Vimala Tadepalli <vimla.c@gmail.com> Mon, 30 March 2015 23:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB5E91ACCFD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2CXh7ZUDJCNB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BA2A1ACCFE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YcjAZ-0006Jx-8V for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:32:35 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:32:35 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YcjAZ-0006Jx-8V@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <vimla.c@gmail.com>) id 1YcjAN-0006I8-Dy for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:32:23 +0000
Received: from mail-yk0-f172.google.com ([209.85.160.172]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <vimla.c@gmail.com>) id 1YcjAM-0006C3-42 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:32:23 +0000
Received: by ykeg184 with SMTP id g184so385675yke.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=K/oGHtvkMng9qCvahN2tL7aT/+3BTfInSu38gA6SehI=; b=aU3RLyUpiihLjLE7LYKP3xSvLhBgMSXbjE5F6PjTiFiWxJBaQlKNNFgY/Ongj0er7K nd3kIwLYJJuKos1NfBGY4QXX5ftmOD/yjVu86mtelmAhaXvXb/djNJAX37x6bg0w9B38 xuqvBAX6hE7919KyD7fIDvxQW6xwt+Yw4m2oAlIO8xkl3F2/qlyKwS3ZgdQnqwNXQyqm aeQG1Py3FbWWy4rR94zR7IUJDRdHwANo1U3H6GRUCByRaWiCaZ8XOW/t8iK37dMtnJE7 veeI6CBs5YtVxYk/J6XWfEoOvrQvjwlk3DmLci/qODsmNYgN4elFDEAyJ1aFIPZPu+9K bSaw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.170.113.2 with SMTP id f2mr11942458ykb.1.1427758315673; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.170.39.80 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAP+FsNftsP2XqP7HNQMrETN6vWjqA05ShSX2jvC7oV1ff5Po-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKwtvnAtuF-X3pgbgLe7VAdnMd4+Yy1EeZLaHgyXXTnZRBgFZw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNftsP2XqP7HNQMrETN6vWjqA05ShSX2jvC7oV1ff5Po-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:31:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKwtvnD5k6YJxvCMr-=qtaWUo+ygoH-Eb4u-1koOKxGPvN1A9A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vimala Tadepalli <vimla.c@gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1137a8523b1f57051289e310"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.160.172; envelope-from=vimla.c@gmail.com; helo=mail-yk0-f172.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.500, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YcjAM-0006C3-42 8ebc584c9595fe0ff92f18cfd8bc9742
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Header addition with HTTP 2.0
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAKwtvnD5k6YJxvCMr-=qtaWUo+ygoH-Eb4u-1koOKxGPvN1A9A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29096
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I should be using "Literal Header Field never Indexed" to add a new header?
Thanks
Vimala

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> HTTP2 is semantically the same.
> It'd depend on the implementation of the firewall, rather than anything
> else.
>
> -=R
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Vimala Tadepalli <vimla.c@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I work on a firewall, where we need to add a header to the client request
>> going to the server.
>>
>> Topology is
>>
>> Client -------> Firewall -------> Servers
>>
>> Ex: Suppose a request is going to youtube, a new header "
>> X-YouTube-Edu-Filter" has to be added to the request.
>>
>> In HTTP 1.0/1.1, this is feasible
>> I tried with SPDY as well and Server did accept the request and
>> redirected accordingly.
>>
>> In HTTP 2.0, can i do this?
>> If a header is added at firewall, client and server dynamic tables might
>> go out of sync. Will it cause any issues?
>>
>> Any suggestion is greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Vimala
>>
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email