Re: new version trusted-proxy20 draft


On Feb 19, 2014, at 7:57 AM, Thomas Fossati <TFossati@velocix.com> wrote:

> On 19/02/2014 02:02, "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
>> And furthermore, I should add that I don't really think it's in the
>> users' interests to have an intermediary be able to snoop listen in on
>> all their https traffic.
> 
> It’s not the https traffic that would be snooped, but the http traffic
> carried over HTTP/2.0 + TLS
> 
>> I don't really see the value for end users in
>> standardizing any mechanism for doing this.
> 
> E.g. getting lower latencies on mobile networks (due to improved caching
> at the edge).

caching is one of the benefit of course.

even a HTTP2 or SPDY connection is not able to fully utilise the access link due to the fact
that there is not always content to send. This is because the Browser may 'wait' until sending
subsequent request (i.e. parsing, JS processing, etc).
Such request would then causes an RTT latency in the reply even assuming 'warm' TCP.
In our internal measurements there have been many such cases for a page thus the RTT impact multiplies.
With the presence of a statically cached proxy, the request/response pattern become faster.

another benefit is that a proxy in an access network is the one that is in the best position to know the real
status of the network and can use those information to play with the HTTP2 flow control mechanism
in order to provide a better user experience to the end user

a forward trusted proxy, not necessarily one in the access network, can also provide anonymity to a User-Agent
in the case the User does not trust the content provider 

/Sal


>

Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2014 20:56:18 UTC