On Jul 27, 2016 6:53 PM, "Yann Ylavic" <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 8:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> since Upgrade is an HTTP/1 feature, I don't find it too twisted... > >> > >> The primary goal would be to let the backend decide whether an Upgrade > >> is to be done, or otherwise continue with HTTP (still parsing the > >> response, filtering, caching, ...). > > > > > > Nope... a thousand times nope... > > > > The protocol, along with a host of headers, are a hop-by-hop entities. > > They are not part of that discussion. > > Hmm, what's the point? > Can't proxies forward protocols? Don't we forward WebSocket already? > Do hop by hop headers prevent HTTP forwarding? > > We are talking about proxying Upgraded protocols here (once upgraded), > acting as a transparent/reverse proxy, when configured to, and as > negotiated by the client and backend. > Don't we do that for HTTP and other protocols already?
Nope. Point-to-point is addressed by CONNECT, everything else is hop-by-hop.
