W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 17:34:25 +0200
Message-ID: <53A6F781.3030501@gmx.de>
To: Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2014-06-22 16:59, Martin Nilsson wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 09:44:33 +0200, Julian Reschke
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-06-21 23:18, Martin Nilsson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 17:06:31 +0200, Julian Reschke
>>> <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 would like to hear why you think it shares considerations with
>>> classical proxies. My gut response would be that it isn't in scope.
>>
>> Terminating TLS "somewhere else" would be one consideration. (Like it
>> or not)
>>
>
> Opera Mini doesn't use TLS though, and the data inside the encrypted
> layer isn't standardized. We could of course move to use TLS, and how
> that would work could be documented. E.g. private protocols could have a
> name space in ALPN.

What I meant is that if I access a HTTPS URI from Opera Mini, the TLS 
connection will not be terminated on the UA but on an Opera server.

Right?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 22 June 2014 15:36:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC