- From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 02:23:53 +0100
- To: "Diego R. Lopez" <diego@tid.es>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>, Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>, "<ietf-http-wg@w3.org>" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hiya, On 17/06/14 01:55, Diego R. Lopez wrote: > As far as I can tell Stephen's objections were about a proxy acting > as intermediary in a connection using HTTPS Not quite. I do object to modifying TLS to add a 3rd party with no real analysis of the significant impact of doing that. (Where a real analysis is a *lot* of work as stated earlier etc. etc.) I'll be interested to see if a useful HTTP layer solution that does not modify TLS is practical, or not. And since I am in favour of defining how to use HTTP URIs over TLS, and of more use of that, yes, there is maybe an interesting cross-over space between that and some possible HTTP proxy proposals. I'm not sure to be honest if a useful thing can be standardised in this space. That said, I think after my concerns are handled, you may run straight into Will's browser UI and caching issues, which might be even trickier, so I am not by any means asserting that there is a good approach that's possible to standardise here. Cheers, S.
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2014 01:24:29 UTC