4 ms·
True. But the path method has issues too, like, how would you implement that with HTTP 1.1? The "path" field is actually part of the target, so you would have t
by shawnz 6y ago
True. But the path method has issues too, like, how would you implement that with HTTP 1.1? The "path" field is actually part of the target, so you would have to send the request like `CONNECT-IP https://remote-server/mount-point https://remote-server/mount-point` which seems backwards. (EDIT: and also you still need to make sure you don't give the wrong kind of error if the path is wrong, like a 404 instead of a 501 not implemented or whatever)
As a possible solution for the discovery by authorization error problem, maybe a convention could be established where an authorization error is returned by default if CONNECT-* isn't configured.
- saurik 6y agoHuh. It is possible that I simply didn't understand the spec, as I was (and am...) pretty sure that CONNECT-IP (at least at the HTTP semantics level) just takes a path (and only /)--like GET--without an associated "extra" authority, as it is creating an IP tunnel: there is no remote host (as there would be with an old-school CONNECT); like, what is the "target" here? I am just talking to the server and asking it to give me an IP bridge, right? What does "remote-server" represent to an IP tunnel?
- shawnz 6y agoYou're right, I misunderstood the usage. That does make the possibility of using the path more compelling