Re: Semantics of HTTPS

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> The tls WG was offered that option again last week and rejected it again. If 
> the httpbis WG want to standardise some kind of mitm without changing TLS 
> then that seems to re-define https to me at least.

I strongly agree. MITM proxies are not defined elements of a TLS 
infrastructure and legitimizing them would redefine HTTPS to me. They are 
hacks or attacks or whatever we should call them.

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se