- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:04:30 +0200
- To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "Diego R. Lopez" <diego@tid.es>
- CC: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-06-20 21:25, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Diego R. Lopez <diego@tid.es > <mailto:diego@tid.es>> wrote: > > So the SPDY proxy and Chrome are a split UA as well? A general proxy > run by Microsoft for all IEs would be a split UA? > > > I don't know the details of how these work, but it seems likely that > that's the > case. Looking at <https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/data-compression>, Google calls this thingy a proxy themselves. In any case, whether or not we call the Google Data Compression Proxy or Opera Turbo a proxy -- they are put into the communications path in order to address problems that *could* be addressed by a "real" proxy as well. Thus, I believe we should - mention them, giving them a name, and - think about why browser developers deploy non-standards-based proxies. Some obvious reasons are: 1) so that they can optimize the protocol (performance, security), 2) to simplify configuration (a check box is simpler to explain than a proper proxy config UI). What else? With respect to 1) - it would be good to understand whether people using custom protocols today would be willing to switch to something standard if compares well to their custom approach. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 13:05:03 UTC