Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)

On 20 Jun 2014, at 21:25 , Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com<mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>> wrote:
It is not the software vendor "imposing" something to the user here as well?

Of course, but the software vendor imposes all kinds of choices on the user
all the time, and of course the user can use some other kind of software.
If your enterprise/ISP requires you to use a proxy, now you have two entities
in control of your experience rather than one.

What I am concerned here is about the differentiation between the term "proxy" (i.e., an imposed MITM) and "split UA" (i.e., a design decision of the browser producer) May be we should try to coin a more neutral term, like "intermediary" or "forwarder" or... Perceptions have a very important role to play here.

Be goode,


-Ekr




On 20 Jun 2014, at 13:37 , Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com<mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>> wrote:

I generally think of a split UA as being one where both sides are controlled
by the software vendor. E.g., Amazon sells you the Kindle Fire and they
also run the server side. That's different from having the enterprise impose
a proxy on a piece of software which someone else wrote and deployed.

-Ekr

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Diego R. Lopez <diego@tid.es<mailto:diego@tid.es>> wrote:
Would not any proxy fall in this split UA category then? What differentiates a proxy from a split UA?

On 20 Jun 2014, at 11:59 , Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote:

> On 20 June 2014 08:06, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de<mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de>> wrote:
>> Finally, there are cases where part of the UA functionality is moved into
>> the network, such as in Opera mini - do we consider that as "proxying" as
>> well (methinks yes, because it shares most of the considerations of
>> classical proxies).
>
> I don't tend to think of this as a proxy at all.  Split UA is the term
> I've used casually with respect to Opera mini, Silk and others.
> Really, this is just a software deployment choice.
>


--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: diego@tid.es<mailto:diego@tid.es>
Tel:    +34 913 129 041<tel:%2B34%20913%20129%20041>
Mobile: +34 682 051 091<tel:%2B34%20682%20051%20091>
-----------------------------------------


________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx



--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: diego@tid.es<mailto:diego@tid.es>
Tel:    +34 913 129 041<tel:%2B34%20913%20129%20041>
Mobile: +34 682 051 091<tel:%2B34%20682%20051%20091>
-----------------------------------------


________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx



--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: diego@tid.es<mailto:diego@tid.es>
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
-----------------------------------------


________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx