-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Autoresolve grpcs
scheme for port 443
#646
Comments
Really questionable. Admins can do all sorts of weird things. You don't know if 443 is TLS or not in any particular scenario. Normally it is. But some can find reasons to do otherwise. Schemes are exactly for that, http/https, grpc/grpcs. If we were talking about the default port when it's not specified, that'd be a different story, there are known good ones to use. But when it's specified without a scheme you have to resort to the default scheme which is not using TLS. |
I'd prefer to have 443 as a default: grpcs://st1.storage.fs.neo.org |
exactly, this is where defaults fit well, which should make life easier in real practice
ofc, but this is much more rare case tbh. For them, it is worth explicitly specifying the scheme
i like this too. In total, I'd expect following resolution:
this would cover most practical cases and reduce the likelihood of random mistake i can also agree with @roman-khimov opinion cuz
browsers' behavior vary: Chrome uses HTTPS while Firefox does not |
Firefox also uses https by default |
yeah, but if hostname is used, ip:443 uses http |
indded, I have enabled |
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Client
uses insecuregrpc
scheme when scheme is missing in the address parameter. Port443
is reserved forhttp protocol over TLS/SSL
. For users, it would be easier if conn scheme defaulted togrpcs
for addresses with this port cuz it's easier to forget the scheme than desire to try dial it insecurelyDescribe the solution you'd like
when port is
443
, make a TLS dialDescribe alternatives you've considered
no
Additional context
nspcc-dev/neo-go#3721
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: