IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Header addition with HTTP 2.0

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Mon, 30 March 2015 21:56 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 910DD1A0439 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:56:45 -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 qN6I_06HZfPi for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:56:44 -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 0D0941A065C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ychd8-0007v8-TN for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:53:58 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:53:58 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Ychd8-0007v8-TN@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1Ychd0-0007uQ-QJ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:53:50 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1Ychcz-0002np-C4 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:53:50 +0000
Received: by obbec2 with SMTP id ec2so4307326obb.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:53:23 -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=AJWxa2RA4l/F0NiIFSOuqFH2tdTltMA9i9vODh/HmCM=; b=hXv65LfCy8tPdZyw5eR5JaNEVUat9GMB8fgEJuBaRPBLDud8AYLKUkwbi7jCh5BSPo ao/gDNgz0w16ziQ9pPbPAlkxGjulGPLKQwm9pwSY7bvKBggHKDF0OznBK+Ez3FG4x+QI T/AB/+xJVV+2fc3UYCnq3yHC3PkOfbQFSrbGnL8KC+aD6vT7rskoboxAPl8DKvZ0wWnQ Et9pUHMOXJ9Is4mk5HYol7tpMZOENscQZ9p+ALA92Efi8jNWOgDdN4Cd0IyJyftbgjnq TZWDi+PbDOMIASJzTCmyGmd6M4rt0CLSNJzSvy52CtkiAx0eMCDkA8hno7QlbZhZvX8Q BVqQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.85.98 with SMTP id g2mr20503286oez.74.1427752402955; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.19.130 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKwtvnAtuF-X3pgbgLe7VAdnMd4+Yy1EeZLaHgyXXTnZRBgFZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKwtvnAtuF-X3pgbgLe7VAdnMd4+Yy1EeZLaHgyXXTnZRBgFZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:53:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNftsP2XqP7HNQMrETN6vWjqA05ShSX2jvC7oV1ff5Po-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Vimala Tadepalli <vimla.c@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0111bc2cce35b505128882a7"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.179; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f179.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.239, 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_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Ychcz-0002np-C4 a39b3796f01326767289ee0f663050cc
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Header addition with HTTP 2.0
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNftsP2XqP7HNQMrETN6vWjqA05ShSX2jvC7oV1ff5Po-w@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29093
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>

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