- From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
- Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:35:40 -0800
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > On 20 Feb 2014, at 11:40 am, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Let's be clear, these are two different things. There's "secure proxy" which is securing the connection between the proxy and the client. I'm supportive of standardizing this. > > There seems to be a reasonable amount of support for this, and no dissent that I've heard. > > What needs to be specified here? We don't say much about proxies yet. I suppose we might need something like RFC2818 for secure proxies, but that seems somewhat straightforward, and it might be better for that to happen in the TLS WG (indeed, our charter pretty much says so). I don't think that there's anything HTTP/2 specific about "secure" proxies. Should we decouple it and just standardize it separately from HTTP/2 (although I think it's likely that the HTTP/2 spec may want to reference it)? > > Note that I've just opened <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/413> to talk about proxies a bit more in general. > > Cheers, > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > >
Received on Monday, 24 February 2014 06:36:08 UTC