Re: Mandatory encryption *is* theater

On Aug 26, 2013, at 12:25 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm all for people working out how to do explicit proxy configuration.
> I am pro-proxy, so long as the customers want proxies and are able to exercise choice about it.
> I do believe, however, that we could do substantially better w.r.t. caching than we do today-- I just don't have the bandwidth to deal with that and this effort simultaneously. :)
> 
> In any case, I suspect that the entirety of the complexity here comes down to a MAYs and two MUSTs, for instance:

As a proxy / cache guy myself, I can't help feeling we're mostly ignoring this important issue. In the reverse proxy case, it's mostly a wash whether it's SSL or not (although, haproxy/SLB people might disagree).  However, in forward and intercepting proxy, HTTPS is a real issue. For example, youtube streams are generally cacheable on forward/intercepting proxies over HTTP today, but I'd imagine over SPDY and HTTP/2 they are not?

I'm not sure what exactly we should do here, and I don't expect Roberto to drive this (unless he wants to of course). I do however feel that we ought to look into this as part of the HTTP/2 specifications as important use cases.

Cheers,

-- Leif

Received on Monday, 26 August 2013 15:22:31 UTC