feat(destination): Add destination profile protocol #443
Conversation
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; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
Currently, we only have a way of specifying if a destination is opaque and not any other protocol.
This adds a new
protocolfield (supercedingopaque_protocol) that lets the destination controller set the protocol a destination expects.