Proposed minor spec changes, for comment.

[Sean Conner]

It was thus said that the Great kaoD once stated:
> Glad to hear about SNI being in the radar. It's a must for virtual hosting.

  Yup.  At least two servers that I am aware of implement it, GLV-1.12556 (I
wrote this one) and gemserv.

> Any thoughts about SNI interaction with the current "host in request URL is
> like Host header" in the spec? 

  It's how GLV-1.12556 determines what set of content handlers to look
through when serving up a request.  The public server I have doesn't serve
multiple hosts, but the code running it can.

> Since SNI does the virtual hosting part (and
> better) it would only be useful for proxying other hosts AFAICT.
> 
> Is proxying allowed currently in any server? 

  I saw something about gemserv supporting proxying, but I don't know the
details of how it works.

  As for proxy support in GLV-1.12556 (the only server I can speak
authoritatively about), it would be easy to write a handler to support a
proxy like:

	gemini://gemini.conman.org/proxy/mozz.us/journal/2020-05-06.gmi

  But if by "proxy" you mean you connect to gemini.conman.org and expect the
request itself to be proxied:

		gemini://mozz.us/journal/2020-05-06.gmi

that ... could be done, but it would require two things---1) your client
would have to know to use the gemini.conman.org certificate to connect to my
server and 2) my server would have to know to proxy this domain (and
supporting that type of proxy in GLV-1.12556 would require some
thought---the server isn't set up for that type of thing [1]).

> Is it even desirable in the
> protocol? Or is it just an idea that ossified in the spec without real
> world use? (Genuine questions! I don't see the use but in sure it's been
> discussed and I'm just late to the party.)

  When the suggestion to use the URL as the request (which would give us
multidomain support with a server), solderpunk also saw a proxy being easy
to implement without thinking about the implications.  

> Most servers (all I've tried, circumlunar.space included) fail to handle
> host-less requests (out of spec) and deny proxying other hosts.
> 
> And I'm pretty sure clients are adapting to this behavior. I'm afraid this
> will end up being the de facto standard even with SNI making it obsolete.

  Huh?  I don't understand the concern here.

  -spc
[1]	Nor does it support multiple domains with a single certificate/key
	pair.  Right now, each server requires its own certificate/key file.