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: Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:35:53 +0200
To: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.xhvfd3ikiw9drz@beryllium.bredbandsbolaget.se>
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:39:58 +0200, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

>
>
>> 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.
>

I think we are talking about two different things, which is confusing  
things. There is the organizational aspect that you discuss. Then there is  
the technical aspect of if the server component is needed for the client  
to work (as opposed to merely hard coded to make the appearance of it  
being needed). These can combine in four different permutations, and all  
four are represented in practice.

In addition you can of course bundle these together in a single client in  
any combination.

/Martin Nilsson

-- 
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Received on Sunday, 22 June 2014 19:36:22 UTC

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