- From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:19:28 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 09/13/2012 09:52 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 13/09/2012, at 6:30 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > >> >> Hi Willy, >> >> On 09/13/2012 06:47 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:06:24PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> I haven't seen any more discussion of this. >>>> >>>> Being that both the TLS WG Chair and at least one security AD have both >>>> unambiguously said that it should be considered an e2e protocol (please >>>> correct if I'm wrong), we return to the original question -- >>>> >>>> Should we state that the HTTPS URI scheme implies end-to-end security (i.e., >>>> between the user-agent and the origin server)? >>> >>> I have thought a bit about the arguments made in favor of this and my >>> opinion has evolved on the subject. I think that we should probably keep >>> the https scheme as "end-to-end" so that the user is sure about this, >>> but in this case we'd need another scheme for the https from proxy to >> >> Do you mean another URI scheme? >> >> That might be a way forward since it'd allow both ends (UA, site) >> some choice in whether they'd allow middlebox snooping. > > > I really think a new scheme is a non-starter here... Tend to agree. That's why Willy's mail confused me. S.
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 09:19:51 UTC