Re: Alt-Svc + Proxy Pac

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/62

On 3 April 2015 at 09:50, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Good question.
>
> I think that you put the original requested URL in and let the proxy
> worry about alt-svc compliance.
>
> The proxy is your overriding alternative.  That matches the logic in
> the case where the proxy.pac isn't present and you just have a
> hard-coded proxy that you send all requests to.
>
> Now, if the proxy.pac suggests that direct is acceptable, I think that
> makes it OK to (try to) use the alternative.  If you think of
> proxy.pac as a first level alternative selector, and alt-svc as a
> second-level one, I think that works.
>
>
>
> On 3 April 2015 at 07:35, Ryan Hamilton <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Howdy Folks,
>>
>> I'm curious how Alt-Svc is expect to work with Proxy PAC files. Consider the
>> scenario where http://www.example.com/ has an Alt-Svc that specified http/2
>> on mail.example.com:443. When the browser decides to make an http/2 (over
>> TLS) connection to mail.example.com, on behalf of http://www.example.com,
>> what URL and host should the browser pass to the PAC file's
>> FindProxyForURL() method?
>>
>> I can argue both cases.
>>
>> * It should pass in the requested url (http://www.example.com/) because that
>> is the URL being requested. There is no other URL.
>> * It should pass in a pseudo url (https://mail.exmaple.com/) because, for
>> example, access to mail.example.com may well requires use of a proxy to
>> access. By passing in the request URL, the PAC file does not have the
>> opportunity to send the connection to the correct proxy.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Ryan
>>