> 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?
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?
With reverse-proxying, would caching of the policy by the reverse proxy
be a reasonable strategy? With the usual HTTP cache control headers
(rather than max_age) setting the duration?
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
