- From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 14:46:47 +0200
- To: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>, "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Le Mer 13 mai 2015 01:38, Martin Thomson a écrit : > The signing scheme in [1] is definitely a candidate here. But I think > that it attempts to resolve what is a fundamental dichotomy in the > protocol: intermediaries can and do change header fields and we can't > predict which. The fundamental dichotomy is that the spec mandates that intermediaries piggy-back on http headers to communicate with web clients (auth…) but https advocates want to cipher everything including those headers. This can not work out. No mater what scheme you choose, until you separate the proxy client com from the server client com nothing will be resolved Http2 would have been a golden opportunity to define separate hop by hop frames and end the bickering once and for all. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2015 12:47:36 UTC