- From: Frode Kileng <frodek@tele.no>
- Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:54:33 +0100
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hi Emilie
On 07.02.2014 12:23, emile.stephan@orange.com wrote:
> Hi Frode,
>
> The term MITM in not appropriate for these cases: the service
augmentation
> is performed by the reverse proxy of the mobile operator. This
reverse proxy
> receives and processes the requests for the service provided by the
mobile
> operator.
Is the client configured to use this proxy? If not, I prefer to use MITM
although the wording may not be the the most important isue...
Regarding the "identity binding", an alternative is of course to do this
end-2-end. If this for some reason isn't an alternative, I would propose
that the use case description clearly states why, both in regard to
end-user experience ("User benefit") and/or service/network provider
issues ("Admin Benefit").
Regards
Frode Kileng
Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 11:54:54 UTC