Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt from Martin Thomson on 2014-07-11 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from July to September 2014)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:33:53 -0700
To: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWGf5_pJjCh5OHzs7RS5W4J1XQ4JKu1zRXf3Hta4HNYfg@mail.gmail.com>

On 11 July 2014 12:17, Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com> wrote:
> It would be helpful to discuss the load-balancer scenario as it is a MITM proxy and from there we can figure out what elements of HTTP or TLS are in play.

The term we use here is gateway.  And the different deployment options
alter where the discussion belongs.  Forwarding TCP is very different
from acting as a gateway.  Here we need only concern ourselves with
the latter.

I think that you may have missed my point though.  The important
distinction is first party vs. third.  A gateway is intrinsically a
first party in the conversation.

The discussion we're looking to have is: what is the role of third
parties in what is primarily a two party protocol?

Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 19:34:24 UTC