Skip to content

feat(destination): Add destination profile protocol #443

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

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

sfleen
Copy link

@sfleen sfleen commented Feb 18, 2025

Currently, we only have a way of specifying if a destination is opaque and not any other protocol.

This adds a new protocol field (superceding opaque_protocol) that lets the destination controller set the protocol a destination expects.

Currently, we only have a way of specifying if a destination is opaque and not any other protocol.

This adds a new `protocol` field (superceding `opaque_protocol`) that lets the destination controller set the protocol a destination expects.

Signed-off-by: Scott Fleener <scott@buoyant.io>

enum Protocol {
// An unknown protocol was set by the user.
UNKNOWN = 0;
Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is the important part of this change, and also the one I'm not 100% sure about.

It may make sense to combine the UNKNOWN and OPAQUE cases, since we'd expect the proxy to treat it the same in both cases.

I'm also not sure if we need an explicit DETECT case. Thoughts?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd argue that if any should be combined, it should be UNKNOWN and DETECT. if the protocol is UNKNOWN, I would expect the proxy to do protocol detection whereas if the protocol is OPAQUE, I would expect the proxy to skip protocol detection.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The reasoning here is that if the protocol is UNKNOWN, that means the user has set a protocol, it's just one we don't recognize. IMO treating it as opaque seems the most appropriate here.

@sfleen sfleen marked this pull request as ready for review February 18, 2025 20:37
@olix0r olix0r marked this pull request as draft March 4, 2025 18:02
@olix0r olix0r self-assigned this Mar 4, 2025
@olix0r olix0r self-requested a review March 4, 2025 18:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants