W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: Secure Proxy definition [was: "Secure" proxies for HTTP URIs]

From: Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:45:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CANmPAYEyfb4E9bPmDqd1gdKxhv_=qXnbW-bgKckiR2Dm35=+uw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
Cc: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
While there is not agreement about HTTP2 for HTTP URIs without a proxy, all
may agree that if the browser is talking to a proxy over TLS, then it will
use HTTP2 if the proxy supports it. It would be great for proxies if
browsers could all agree to this. Even better would be if browsers could
agree to an improved discovery mechanism for HTTP URIs.

But in general yes +1 on including "Secure Proxy" in the HTTP2 spec.

Peter


On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:17 AM, Salvatore Loreto <
salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> wrote:

>  IMO the HTTP2 spec should contain a definition of "Secure Proxy".
>
>  A definition is necessary because at moment we don't have the definition
> anywhere
> while it is something (similar?) to what Chrome already supports and
> and there something also on the Firefox roadmap (i.e. Patrick whiteboard)
>
>  So what I am asking for is just a definition,
> and I guess that it also (please correct me if I have misinterpreted),
> in line with William request to standardise the "Secure Proxy" in a
> separate spec but reference it in the HTTP/2
>
>  and it should easily fit in the #413 issue
>
>  best regards
> Salvatore
>
>  On Feb 24, 2014, at 8:35 AM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>
> 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,
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2014 13:45:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:24 UTC