- From: Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 21:49:32 +0100
- 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. Peter 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