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

Re: comparing eproxy proposals

From: Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 21:49:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CANmPAYHLfuKco6itjvcj+XjexZHLqweMc+ROh5YZkq+ypMWGcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Agreed. There are a lot of other criteria that we need to consider.
For instance, Any Node Refusal involves extra round trips between
proxy and server to setup the point-to-point TLS session, that none of
the other schemes suffer from. I arbitrarily used the GOALS section
from the Vidya draft since it seemed well thought out but we should
establish a more complete list of requirements/goals.


On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> On 01/18/2014 06:23 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message <CANmPAYFm=Vm-L=smSU8XVN6N4fjWWYr=Y0u+Bkg4ryWopZvUbA@mail.gmail.com>
>> , Peter Lepeska writes:
>>> Now to see which goals are met by each proposal...
>>> 6.2.  Goals
>> I'd suggest we also look at how the proposed schemes handle when
>> there are multiple proxies in the path between the client and server.
>> Some of the schemes, #4 for instance, fails that criteria.
> And also whether or not proposals have impact beyond HTTP
> and if so are they accompanied by a full analysis of that
> impact.
> S.
Received on Saturday, 18 January 2014 20:50:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:23 UTC