W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2015

Re: Draft finding - "Transitioning the Web to HTTPS"

From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:45:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEnTvdACGN+0_xJyjXe22hT4qZ62Y5-GjvEOHdPY=8ui4zQBMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
Cc: David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Public TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
While we are on the subject of caching, we have the interesting spectacle
here in the US [1] of an FCC Commissioner calling interception proxies
"open caching" and arguing *against* user privacy protections that, as a
side-effect, impede such caches.

…Mark

[1]
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/netflix-refused-to-answer-encryption-allegation-fcc-commissioner-says/

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 7:37 PM, David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Pervasive low-bandwidth and power/CPU constrained edge networks are
> > going to become very common.
>
> The case where a caching proxy helps in theory is when the uplink is
> constrained compared to the edge network from the proxy to the end
> point. If the edge network is itself slow, the case for proxy caches
> is weak even on theoretical grounds.
>
> > Smarter hub nodes with
> > minimal/intermittent uplink could profitably serve signed/hashed
> > resources in a proxy context
>
> Why would these "things" all be requesting the same large resources?
> (Surely the "things" aren't all requesting currently-popular movies on
> the same edge network.)
>
> > for use cases where confidentiality is
> > not necessary and direct HTTPS authority is too heavy.
>
> What are these use cases? Isn't the expectation that the "things" on
> the Internet of Things will be even closer to people and, therefore,
> be even more privacy-sensitive than what we have now?
>
> > Is the Web going to be part of the "Internet of Things"?
>
> I think debating that question requires agreement on what the Web is.
> See https://www.mnot.net/blog/2014/12/04/what_is_the_web
>
> If you assume the proxy to be near the "thing" in the Internet of
> things, it implies the "thing" would be a client--i.e. a Web browser.
> The W3C has already been through an era when it was claimed that
> limited browsers on underpowered devices were important. Writing specs
> with that assumption turned out to be a mistake: The Web really took
> off on mobile once the devices became powerful enough to run the kind
> of browser engine desktop browser also use.
>
> As for the "thing" in the Internet of things being a Web server,
> there's less relevance to proxies on the edge network where the
> "thing" resides.
>
> --
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@hsivonen.fi
> https://hsivonen.fi/
>
>
Received on Friday, 16 January 2015 20:45:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:09 UTC