IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 20 August 2014 00:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 C9CE21A0076 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.57
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 VHKJ0cDVBVKC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 631A51A0073 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XJu2J-0002fT-Om for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:45:59 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:45:59 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XJu2J-0002fT-Om@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XJu22-0002cZ-4f for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:45:42 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XJu21-0002ss-6r for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:45:42 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.55] (unknown [118.209.123.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E251322E1F4; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:45:17 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAH_y2NEekpgDNO+OsDELarcSi3nn72gHb98L9R66TntcD9bUiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 10:45:12 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3859D490-6B6E-4C7D-A3AF-9F1CF6F69045@mnot.net>
References: <20140818233839.23251.81316.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <858FBAA8-F0D5-43A0-A621-7D504AB3327A@mnot.net> <CAH_y2NEekpgDNO+OsDELarcSi3nn72gHb98L9R66TntcD9bUiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.064, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XJu21-0002ss-6r 696a8e9a08f0abfab772fc6016c510fc
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/3859D490-6B6E-4C7D-A3AF-9F1CF6F69045@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26670
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>

Greg, 

See:
  https://httpwg.github.io/wg-materials/ietf90/IETF90_draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol.pdf
  https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/gh-pages/ietf90/minutes.md#draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol

Cheers,


On 20 Aug 2014, at 10:40 am, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

> Mark,
> 
> Is there a specific use-case motivating this additional header?   ie are there situations that a proxy can use this to do more than just log/debug a tunnel?  
> 
> I'm certainly not opposed to having the additional information that this header provides, but I'd like to know what advantage there is for a client to include the header.  If there is none, then it is not likely to be sent.
> 
> cheers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> 
> http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
> http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email