- From: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:35:12 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I do agree having the right terminology helps the Explicit Authenticated Proxy (as proposed in the draft) is supposed to do a really narrow and limited job that is to proxy http:// URI traffic transported over TLS and it is something completely different from what is in the subject of this mail and discussed in this thread; /Sal On Jun 16, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16 June 2014 07:57, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: >> >> I think "trusted proxy" is a misnomer and misleading and >> in general "trusted foo" is probably better not part of >> any technical discussion on this topic since the question >> of who is trusting whom for what is complex here and >> ignoring that complexity IMO does a disservice to the >> various interested parties. > > > This is a point that I need to emphasize. The labels "trusted proxy" > and "secure proxy" are misnomers in the very best Orwellian tradition. > Those labels need to be used less casually. Here, I note that Sal > gets this right, concentrating on factual aspects - i.e., explicitly > authenticated - even if this point probably needs to be better > supported. > > If we have a proxy for which its primary purpose is policy > enforcement, then we can label that a policy enforcement proxy. >
Received on Monday, 16 June 2014 17:35:40 UTC