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

Should we discuss "split UAs" in the context of proxies, was: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:04:30 +0200
Message-ID: <53A825DE.9060101@gmx.de>
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,


- 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

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