- From: Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:25:34 -0500
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANmPAYHUjBUtCrPNLQxj7fMMSh1maHdbORBs1NTF6MNcLKrUsg@mail.gmail.com>
One question for browser vendors who have said they will not support HTTP2 over plaintext (Firefox, chrome): will you support HTTP2 when http-schemed URIs are being proxied via a Secure Proxy? This allows firefox and chrome users to get the performance benefit of HTTP2 at least across the segment between the ua and the proxy for http-schemed URLs. Thanks, Peter On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > On 25/02/2014 8:49 p.m., Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > Le Mar 25 février 2014 03:58, James Cloos a écrit : > >> if anyone has a legal requirement to avoid end-to-end encryption, they > >> MUST accomplish that by avoiding TLS between client and proxy. Such > >> requirements MUST not affect the rest of us.) > > > > This forbids an http/1 use case and as such is outside the workgroup > charter > > > > There is also no sound reason so far presented behind forbidding that > same use-case in HTTP/2. Just a few implementers choosing not to do it > for reasons which have all be countered by other implementers who do. > > Also, in my (medium-low) familiarity with such laws TLS or any other > mechanism used to transport packets to the collection point (proxy) is > not relevant to the criterion placed upon the ISP. Only the ability to > accurately and *fully* collect and report is prescribed. > End-to-end TLS violates that legal requiremet, TLS-to-proxy does not. > > Amos > > >
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2014 15:26:01 UTC