- From: Juan M. Sierra Lebrón <jsierra@economistes.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:56:49 +0200
- To: "'Adrian Chadd'" <adrian@creative.net.au>, "'Willy Tarreau'" <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'Adam Barth'" <w3c@adambarth.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Adrien de Croy'" <adrien@qbik.com>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
We send this mail from a law firm. We are not interested in receiving emails advertising. Under Law 34/2002 of 11 July, Services of information society and electronic commerce, you are notified about the responsibility that you may incur if you keep sending emails. We want that our data are deleted from its database Sincerely. EVIAL ASESORES Juan M. Sierra Lebrón jsierra@economistes.com C/ Pau Claris, 190 - 2º 1ª - 08037 Barcelona Telf. 935 157 234 - Fax 934 873 677 Cláusula confidencial El contenido de este mensaje y cualquier documento adjunto al mismo son confidenciales. Tienen el sólo propósito de su uso por el individuo o entidad designado como receptor. Si recibe este mensaje por error, se le informa, que su lectura, divulgación, copia o distribución está estrictamente prohibida y le rogamos nos lo notifique por e-mail a (jsierra@economistes.com). Antes de imprimir este e-mail, piense bien si es necesario hacerlo. -----Mensaje original----- De: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] En nombre de Adrian Chadd Enviado el: viernes, 29 de octubre de 2010 8:29 Para: Willy Tarreau CC: Mark Nottingham; Adam Barth; Julian Reschke; Adrien de Croy; HTTP Working Group Asunto: Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) On Fri, Oct 29, 2010, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 04:41:14PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > It's not free, as evidenced by the hoops that are being jumped through to try to make sure that it isn't treated like HTTP. > > No, we're trying to make sure it *is* treated like HTTP even on non > completely HTTP compliant stacks which could possibly treat the tunnelled > data as HTTP too while they must not. Otherwise, the 101+upgrade perfectly > fits the purpose. I know I've asked this before, but what about devices that wish to pull apart the CONNECT traffic (MITM security appliances) and, deciding the traffic isn't actually HTTP, quite rightly denies it? What about statistical fingerprinting of traffic? (ie, fingerprinting whether a CONNECT session is likely to be HTTP or not based on exchanged traffic patterns.) Adrian
Received on Friday, 29 October 2010 07:54:55 UTC