- From: Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 16:59:20 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 09:44:33 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2014-06-21 23:18, Martin Nilsson wrote: >> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 17:06:31 +0200, Julian Reschke >> <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 would like to hear why you think it shares considerations with >> classical proxies. My gut response would be that it isn't in scope. > > Terminating TLS "somewhere else" would be one consideration. (Like it or > not) > Opera Mini doesn't use TLS though, and the data inside the encrypted layer isn't standardized. We could of course move to use TLS, and how that would work could be documented. E.g. private protocols could have a name space in ALPN. /Martin Nilsson -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Received on Sunday, 22 June 2014 14:59:49 UTC