- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:28:45 +1200
- To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 03.04.2012 09:32, Roberto Peon wrote: > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Peter Lepeska wrote: > >> Big bites do seem to go down easier than lots of little ones. The >> problem >> is that SPDY is eating *two* shit sandwiches, trying to make the web >> both fast and secure, at the same time. This bite is more than most >> can >> chew and so adoption will be much slower b/c of the SSL requirement, >> in my >> opinion. > > > Really? I'd say it was two delicious ingredients, personally. I also > think > that assuming that deployment is greatly suffering is not validated > by > real-world experience. > in the past few months there has been a noticeable increase in queries about: * how to decrypt CONNECT tunnels to port 443 * how to implement MITM of port 443 for filtering followed shortly after by: * how to force port-443 traffic through the proxy without breaking non-HTTPS traffic on that port * how to decrypt CONNECT traffic without breaking VoIP tunnels and other non-HTTPS CONNECT traffic * how to force https:// to http:// by the browser, then reverse it at the proxy outgoing to https:// * how to force http:// to https:// by the browser, then reverse it at a proxy outgoing to http:// again then more recently these have started coming in: * why some recent browsers are doing things without being logged by proxy monitors (use of SPDY/WebSockets connections?) Now you tell us there is no suffering... AYJ
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 02:29:13 UTC