W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: multiplexing -- don't do it

From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 08:32:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CABaLYCuo48pc4rKpm1HiHRdeEzc14piXojtGuE87APQRYMk1Sw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Robert Collins <robertc@squid-cache.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Stephen Farrell

> On 04/03/2012 12:22 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
>> This seems rather timely:
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/**technology/news/9179087/**
>> Internet-activity-to-be-**monitored-under-new-laws.html<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9179087/Internet-activity-to-be-monitored-under-new-laws.html>
> And not timely but relevant:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**rfc2804 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2804>

So from my reading of this, what we're discussing as a https trusted proxy
does not classify under RFC 2804's definition of wiretapping in any way.

Section 3 defines 4 definitions of wiretapping, and we are not hitting any
of them:

1) Not wiretapping because what we're talking about here is explicitly
known to the sender.

2) Not wiretapping because the receivers would see that this was done by a
proxy user agent, in the same way that a standard proxy today identifies
itself in the middle (note, however, that transparent proxies today are
considered wiretaps by this definition!  so by removing transparent
proxies, we're removing a common class of wiretap!)

3) Not wiretapping because the sender can be told of the exact consequence
and also be able to configure out of it.

4) Not applicable - we aren't proposing this at all.

Any disagreement?


> S
>  -Rob
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 06:34:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:59 UTC