W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: 2 questions

From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 23:35:12 +0100
Message-ID: <551B2120.7020907@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
CC: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Xiaoyin Liu <xiaoyin.l@outlook.com>, Dan Anderson <dan-anderson@cox.net>, "Walter H." <walter.h@mathemainzel.info>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Hi,

On 31/03/15 23:21, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> >Meanwhile, the take-away is clearly that MitM deployment is one of
>> >those things that's (ab:-)used about 0.41% of the time and should
>> >be treated as such and that claims to the contrary are anecdotal.
>
> Sorry for being the "one sheep which looks like it is black on at least
> one side" guy:

Actually the reason I posted about it was because this list seems
to have a lot of anecdotes on this topic and little or no data.

> As interesting as that study was, its results does not support your
> rather flippant and arrogant marginalization of MitM as an issue.

Flippant, that's quite possible:-)

Arrogant? Really? Apologies if I was, but that's surprising.

Anyway, feel free to produce better peer-reviewed data. I'm sure
the state of the art in this space is evolving rapidly, and it's
probably fair to say that it's still somewhat early days in
Internet measurement in general (or when we look back in a few
years, I figure we'll think that).

But studies like these are still (for me anyway) far more worth
paying attention to than yet more anecdotes and prognostications.

S.
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 22:35:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:43 UTC