Subject: [Masque] (no subject)

From: Patrick McManus <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:59:46 -0400

David, thanks for writing up https://github.com/DavidSchinazi/masque-drafts
.. it makes things a bit more concrete even at a very early stage.

I have a couple drive by comments - I hope they help, and I'm sure its
possible they've been discussed in another forum.. the general tech here
has been in a number of different places.

1] istm the configuration primative should be a URI rather than an origin
with a .wk.. there is a reason multiple masque instances couldn't co-exist
on different streams? (different auth, different qos, whatever..)

2] I can't quite figure out what the document _is_. Is it an h3 and h2
extension? Is it a version independent http pattern?

3] You switch up a few things about CONNECT in the same way that rfc 8441
does (which obviously warms my heart!).. but note that 8441 had to be a
negotiated extension to get opt in for breaking some of the base rules of
7540 (a totally allowable thing if negotiated)... specifically you can't
send :protocol or implement CONNECT in some way other than opening a TCP
connection to :authority.

3a - but you obviously don't want to announce your extension in the server
SETTINGS. This seems more like a spec lawyer problem than a real problem.
Nonetheless give the matter some thought, maybe CONNECT isn't the right way
to do it (even though it seems in spirit).

4 - speaking of which, what do you set :authority to on this CONNECT
request given CONNECT defines that..

5 - "When the server receives this CONNECT request, it verifies the
signature and if that fails responds with code “405 Method Not Allowed”,
making sure its response is the same as what it would return for any
unexpected CONNECT request." .. I'm not totally sure about my comment here,
but my gut says you don't want to require 405 and instead have text about
probing as it seems to me that servers might be inclined to do other things
for existing errors. For instance I just tried two public facing servers
(not proxies) and gave them CONNECT requests.. one gave me a 405 and one
gave me a 500..

6;plkjhghjkl;][poiuyguiop[]\[poiuytyuiop[][poiuyuiop[poip[][poikp[';[lpkjhbnm,./09865432

hth!

-P

---

From: Patrick McManus <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:01:51 -0400

> 6;plkjhghjkl;][poiuyguiop[]\[poiuytyuiop[][poiuyuiop[poip[][poikp[';[lpkjhbnm,./09865432
oh man. all I can do is laugh. Pretend its a secret coded message (I was
cleaning my keyboard). sry.

-P