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: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 09:39:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMYtKkLjLMvgkau6zNi82ut8k-vHt4U9--GJ+P2jR9WsQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Diego R. Lopez" <diego@tid.es>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 3:53 AM, Diego R. Lopez <diego@tid.es> wrote:

>
>  On 20 Jun 2014, at 21:25 , Eric Rescorla <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.
>

Hmm... But the point is that these aren't the same thing from the user's
perspective. In one case, you have to trust one set of people (the vendor)
and in the other case you need to trust two (the vendor and the proxy
operator). The use of two terms thus preserves that distinction and
discussion of MITM devices needs to acknowledge that distinction
or it's not going to get very far.

-Ekr



>     On 20 Jun 2014, at 13:37 , Eric Rescorla <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> 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>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 20 June 2014 08:06, 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 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
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"
>>
>> Dr Diego R. Lopez
>> Telefonica I+D
>> http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/
>>
>> e-mail: 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"
>
> Dr Diego R. Lopez
> Telefonica I+D
> http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/
>
> e-mail: 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
>
Received on Sunday, 22 June 2014 16:41:06 UTC

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