- From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:53:19 +0200
- To: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
- Cc: "Jason Greene" <jason.greene@redhat.com>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Le Mar 1 juillet 2014 23:08, William Chan (陈智昌) a écrit : > It's hijacking my thread because it wasn't the impetus :) Indeed, as I > already said, I specifically caveated the CONTINUATION case because I knew > it was contentious. The impetus is because I've received word of MITM > proxies that plan to do deep inspection of HTTP/2. So I'm becoming worried > about ossification on these TLS connections that were previously free from > intermediary interference. Well you were told last year that http2 needed a good intermediary story or intermediary people would get things into their own hands. And that they could make your life miserable just as you could make theirs miserable. And that the "bad" intermediary people where financed by "good" intermediary users because "good" intermediaries have been made to suck so much people had no choice but to junk "good" intermediaries in favour of "bad" working ones. I don't see how your solution/proposal to make intermediaries suck even more by guerilla fighting all of them indiscriminately in http2 implementations is not going to result in more of the same. Make standard malware-scanning youtube-blocking-at-work intermediary work and most of the market for MITM proxies that plan to do deep inspection will evaporate. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 09:54:09 UTC