- From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 10:34:33 +0100
- To: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
- Cc: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Yoav Nir" <synp71@live.com>, "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com>, "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Le Mer 4 décembre 2013 01:22, William Chan (陈智昌) a écrit : > OK, it sounds like people are retreating back from the > autoconfiguration+interstitial part of an explicit proxy proposal...except > maybe Nicholas? I'd love to hear more thoughts on > autoconfiguration+interstitial. It sounds like the prevailing sentiment is > it's unacceptable from a security UX perspective. I think autoconfiguration and explicit are completely orthogonal problems Explicit (in the sense the user knows a gateway is in use, can inspect the gateway settings, and can refuse to use it) is absolutely required for security reasons. That does not mean the set up of this gateway can't be automated. The decision needs to be left to humans. The plumbing, to software & protocol. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 09:35:02 UTC