On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 07:01:21PM -0600, David Fifield wrote:
> And for that matter, why not a plain old HTTP CONNECT proxy? That would
> be even more efficient.
I should add that--leaving out domain fronting/encrypted SNI--there's an
implementation of exactly this, a pluggable transport built on
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 07:55:31PM +0200, Andreas Krey wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 20:23:58 +, David Fifield wrote:
> ...
> > "encrypted SNI" part. But it's possible to do better: if you're willing
> > to abandon HTTP/1.1 compatibility and require HTTP/2, you can use the
> > "server push" feat
