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 22:28:01 +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: <em845e66fc-3be8-4442-b969-d356a4735af6@boist>

------ Original Message ------
From: "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@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>
Sent: 3/04/2012 10:02:56 a.m.
Subject: Re: multiplexing -- don't do it
>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. 
I don't have a problem with proxy usage moving to explicit only.  We've 
been trying to get customers to move in that direction for years.
  
Customers do like using interception though.  Educating them costs 
money.  Not providing the feature would cost us sales, until we could 
get commitment from every other vendor to deprecate the feature.
  
if 2.0 can fix this by providing a path forward which doesn't allow it, 
then everyone will be in the same boat, which is fine with me.
  
>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.
  
I think there will still be cases where trusting a proxy will be 
required.  In the end, if you use it, it can do anything.  If your 
browser sends any request to it over SSL, then the opportunity for 
decisions based on trust are pretty much gone already.
  
Adrien
>
>-=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 22:28:36 GMT

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