-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 146
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[connect-tcp] Move capsule negotiation into the Upgrade Token #2926
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wfm
draft-ietf-httpbis-connect-tcp.md
Outdated
|
||
Server support for the Capsule Protocol is REQUIRED. Servers MUST confirm use of the Capsule Protocol by echoing the "Capsule-Protocol: ?1" header in their response. | ||
Clients of this specification MAY implement "connect-tcp", "connect-tcp-capsule", or both. Accordingly, templated TCP proxy servers for arbitrary clients MUST implement both Upgrade Tokens. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't see why servers MUST implement both. One solution could be to use SHOULD instead (see below). Another option would be to add a sentence saying that servers that only expect one kind of client MAY only implement one of these Upgrade Tokens.
Clients of this specification MAY implement "connect-tcp", "connect-tcp-capsule", or both. Accordingly, templated TCP proxy servers for arbitrary clients MUST implement both Upgrade Tokens. | |
Clients of this specification MAY implement "connect-tcp", "connect-tcp-capsule", or both. Accordingly, templated TCP proxy servers for arbitrary clients SHOULD implement both Upgrade Tokens to improve compatibility. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, I've rephrased this to highlight an exemption for restricted deployments.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
Closes #2922