W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

RE: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt

From: Richard Wheeldon (rwheeldo) <rwheeldo@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:38:07 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0566CA5E9B906D40B6737DD47DA9FB8F1B548E15@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Yes. I think it should be included in any comprehensive description of the problems with proxies. What a solution would look like is an entirely different animal where I completely agree with the points you raise.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net] 
Sent: 15 July 2014 08:45
To: Richard Wheeldon (rwheeldo)
Cc: HTTP Working Group
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt

Hi Richard,

You mean "Living with Interception"?

I removed it because it's a two-front war; not only would we need to fight the "layer violation" issue, but also convince privacy, security and civil society stakeholders that it's legitimate to have an active protocol component between a HTTP UA and origin without the consent or knowledge of either party.

Not to say that we can't talk about it; just that it didn't seem like something useful to include at this point.


On 12 Jul 2014, at 2:53 am, Richard Wheeldon (rwheeldo) <rwheeldo@cisco.com> wrote:

> I'm curious, why did you drop the MITM section?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
> Sent: 04 July 2014 07:47
> To: HTTP Working Group
> Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification for 
> draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
> FYI.
> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> Subject: New Version Notification for 
>> draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
>> Date: 4 July 2014 4:37:12 pm AEST
>> To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham 
>> <mnot@mnot.net>
>> A new version of I-D, draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted to the 
>> IETF repository.
>> Name:		draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem
>> Revision:	01
>> Title:		Problems with Proxies in HTTP
>> Document date:	2014-07-04
>> Group:		Individual Submission
>> Pages:		16
>> URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
>> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem/
>> Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01
>> Diff:           http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01
>> Abstract:
>>  This document discusses the use and configuration of proxies in 
>> HTTP,  pointing out problems in the currently deployed Web 
>> infrastructure  along the way.  It then offers a few principles to 
>> base further  discussion upon, and lists some potential avenues for 
>> further  exploration.
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>> The IETF Secretariat
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 10:38:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC