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

Re: multiplexing -- don't do it

From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:23:31 +0000
To: "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: "Mike Belshe" <mike@belshe.com>, "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <emc5fa8a3f-f440-48d5-a58f-d80a8db48a11@boist>

------ Original Message ------
From: "Roberto Peon" grmocg@gmail.com
>
>
>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.
  
I'm a bit out of touch on that count... last time I remember dealing 
with that, ISPs were sending out disks with Navigator on it.
  
But it only masks the issue in a bunch of cases.  People still download 
and install another browser.  In the end, unless the OS and browsers do 
a great job of co-operating over such config, it can still rear it's 
head.
  
I'd be quite keen for some more work to be done on the auto discovery 
and config option, since it could save a lot of work in customer sites 
(there is already AD group policy, but not everyone has that or can 
figure it out).
  
> 
> >
> >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 sure don't.
  
>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.
  
that would be illegal I think in some countries.  The issue would be 
detecting it.  I don't know how TLS would ameliorate that anyway (if 
that's where you're heading).
  
Adrien

  
>
>-=R
> 
>  
> > 
>
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 22:24:04 GMT

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