W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: multiplexing -- don't do it

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 15:02:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfAh72bwXpC5dGDayuLm6xpSo5G1ffvBuH5ErmZazewxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I don't trust proxies... hopefully that is apparent, but I'm asking for
explicit support for them and attempting to deny support for non explicit
proxies.
On a related point, I'd like to see content signed so that when it is
munged, it is detectable. This helps to change the trust game because it
allows a site to specify (without possibility of modification) policy to
the UA about the fetching of further resources, even through an explicit
proxy.

-=R

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> ------ Original Message ------
>> From: "Roberto Peon" grmocg@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe we need a better way to force a client to use a proxy, and take
>>> the pain out of it for administration.  And do it securely (just
>>> remembering why 305 was deprecated).
>>>
>>
>> like normal proxy configuration?
>>
>>
>> you ever worked on an ISP support desk?
>>
>
> Umm, actually I have.
>
>
>>
>> These are people who can hardly use a mouse you're trying to get them to
>> set up proxy config in their browser?
>>
>>
>
> I'm familiar with these kinds of people and working with them. I'd imagine
> that the ISP would give them an installer which would find and set config
> for these programs without the user having to do it themselves or something
> similarly easy.
>
>
>>
>> Assuming proxies were not explicit, what do you propose the users do the
>> ISP begins filtering and censoring content for reasons of greed?
>> -=R
>>
>>
>> More likely due to statutory requirements.  You guys may think you dodged
>> a bullet with SOPA... other countries you wouldn't expect have already
>> passed laws requiring censorship by ISPs
>>
>> It's not an issue that's going away either.
>>
>
> You're assuming that the ISP's incentives align with the user? I don't. I
> imagine there are some out there who do and are, but on the whole, if
> the capability to make more money exists from installing a box that does
> something to the user's traffic, I'd expect that it gets done.
> Off the top of my head, they can inspect what is going on and sell the
> data of people's behaviors. You could also degrade the service quality for
> any site that was in competition with any that your company (or affiliate)
> provided. Note well that these have already happened. This is NOT
> theoretical.
>
> -=R
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 22:03:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:59 GMT