W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies?

From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 10:34:33 +0100
Message-ID: <6b0ebab8788382f8b2a9d8564388e407.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
To: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Yoav Nir" <synp71@live.com>, "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com>, "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Le Mer 4 décembre 2013 01:22, William Chan (陈智昌) a écrit :
> OK, it sounds like people are retreating back from the
> autoconfiguration+interstitial part of an explicit proxy proposal...except
> maybe Nicholas? I'd love to hear more thoughts on
> autoconfiguration+interstitial. It sounds like the prevailing sentiment is
> it's unacceptable from a security UX perspective.

I think autoconfiguration and explicit are completely orthogonal problems

Explicit (in the sense the user knows a gateway is in use, can inspect the
gateway settings, and can refuse to use it) is absolutely required for
security reasons.

That does not mean the set up of this gateway can't be automated. The
decision needs to be left to humans. The plumbing, to software & protocol.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 09:35:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:20 UTC