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

Re: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?

From: Peter L <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 18:43:21 -0400
Message-Id: <08F415BF-EB43-4AF9-B9AD-DB257402AC66@gmail.com>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
I agree. But I think increased MITM will be an unintended consequence.

Peter

> On Jun 23, 2014, at 6:39 PM, "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I know a lot of organisations that will just block anything they cannot control.
> 
> So to consider it viable that there be no room for forward proxies in the internet of the future is a position that is not particularly well-connected with reality.
> 
> All the move to TLS did was promote the deployment of MiTM, and slow things down quite a bit.
> 
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "bizzbyster@gmail.com" <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
> To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
> Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: 24/06/2014 9:33:42 a.m.
> Subject: Re: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?
> 
>> For encrypted traffic, forward proxies are functionally bypassed and most HTTP/2 traffic will be encrypted. When they do see the rare plaintext attempt to upgrade to HTTP/2, proxies can simply strip the header and prevent it. Therefore proxies have little motivation to implement it. HTTP/2 with mandatory TLS (the Google and Mozilla position) is an attempt to obsolete forward proxies, which explains why lack of proxy support in HTTP/2.0 is not a blocking issue to go to last call.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>>> On Jun 21, 2014, at 12:52 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
>>> 
>>> In message <CABkgnnX9+sf=1RmgyK498ZQwDX+tbAVinck4wpzUgTt4RyH4Cw@mail.gmail.com>
>>> , Martin Thomson writes:
>>> 
>>>> We killed it so that we could avoid having to talk about it any more.
>>>> That worked out well, didn't it?
>>> 
>>> I'm increasingly getting the feeling that we have people who like
>>> the HTTP/2.0 draft and people who work with proxies, and that those
>>> two sets are almost exclusive ?
>>> 
>>> I would be interesting to see what a straw-poll of these two
>>> questions would show:
>>> 
>>> A) I think HTTP/2.0 is ready for last call YES/NO
>>> 
>>> B) My primary HTTP/2.0 interest is proxy technology YES/NO
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
>>> phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
>>> FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
>>> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
> 
Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 22:43:50 UTC

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