On 2017-09-28 23:02, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>> On Sep 28, 2017, at 4:42 PM, Brotman, Alexander
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Please let us know if you have any comments or questions, and thank you for
>> your time.
>
> I see that 302 HTTP redirects are still not supported, and that policy
> delegation without SNI is via reverse proxying, rather than 302
> redirects. I may have missed the discussion that arrived at this
> decision. Is this the "rough consensus" view?
>
May I suggest that if you would like to see redirects supported in
addition to instead of reverse proxy then provide text so we have
something concrete to discuss ?
> I would expected it to be easier to serve 302 redirects than deploy
> a reverse proxy, but perhaps I am mistaken, and HTTPs servers come with
> reverse-proxy support as a common built-in feature?
Speaking as an individual I'd say that modern general purpose webservers
do both equally well and just as easily. There may still be deployment
issues making one or the other preferable in any one situation though...
Cheers Leif
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
