- From: Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:19:06 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <53A4892A.40102@zinks.de>
I think at least the SPDY proxy is not a split UA as it is possible to use a different proxy here. It is possible to downgrade to an HTTP/1.1 proxy or configure a SPDY proxy of a different vendor into Chrome. There are some general proxies which do some rendering in the proxy. Are those then split UA? Roland On 20.06.2014 21:08, Diego R. Lopez wrote: > So the SPDY proxy and Chrome are a split UA as well? A general proxy > run by Microsoft for all IEs would be a split UA? > It is not the software vendor "imposing" something to the user here as > well? > > On 20 Jun 2014, at 13:37 , Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com > <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>> wrote: > >> I generally think of a split UA as being one where both sides are >> controlled >> by the software vendor. E.g., Amazon sells you the Kindle Fire and they >> also run the server side. That's different from having the enterprise >> impose >> a proxy on a piece of software which someone else wrote and deployed. >> >> -Ekr >> >> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Diego R. Lopez <diego@tid.es >> <mailto:diego@tid.es>> wrote: >> >> Would not any proxy fall in this split UA category then? What >> differentiates a proxy from a split UA? >> >> On 20 Jun 2014, at 11:59 , Martin Thomson >> <martin.thomson@gmail.com <mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> > On 20 June 2014 08:06, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de >> <mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de>> wrote: >> >> Finally, there are cases where part of the UA functionality is >> moved into >> >> the network, such as in Opera mini - do we consider that as >> "proxying" as >> >> well (methinks yes, because it shares most of the >> considerations of >> >> classical proxies). >> > >> > I don't tend to think of this as a proxy at all. Split UA is >> the term >> > I've used casually with respect to Opera mini, Silk and others. >> > Really, this is just a software deployment choice. >> > >> >> >> -- >> "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno" >> >> Dr Diego R. Lopez >> Telefonica I+D >> http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/ >> >> e-mail: diego@tid.es <mailto:diego@tid.es> >> Tel: +34 913 129 041 <tel:%2B34%20913%20129%20041> >> Mobile: +34 682 051 091 <tel:%2B34%20682%20051%20091> >> ----------------------------------------- >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede >> consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo >> electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. >> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only >> send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: >> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx >> >> > > > -- > "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno" > > Dr Diego R. Lopez > Telefonica I+D > http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/ > > e-mail: diego@tid.es > Tel: +34 913 129 041 > Mobile: +34 682 051 091 > ----------------------------------------- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede > consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico > en el enlace situado más abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send > and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 19:19:30 UTC