Re: WPD and Multiple Proxies

Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> Mon, 03 November 2014 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB7671A00CD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:35:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.496
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id meGdlkJcN3iV for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:35:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B6881A00B5 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:35:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XlOJG-0001Gp-2o for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 20:33:06 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 20:33:06 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XlOJG-0001Gp-2o@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>) id 1XlOJ9-0001Fq-AL for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 20:32:59 +0000
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net ([193.180.251.48]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>) id 1XlOJ7-00064q-Cc for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 20:32:59 +0000
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79e66d000000ff1-7b-5457e662ced4
Received: from ESESSHC013.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id BA.DC.04081.266E7545; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 21:32:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB109.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.73]) by ESESSHC013.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.57]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 21:32:34 +0100
From: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
To: Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>
CC: "<ietf-http-wg@w3.org>" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: WPD and Multiple Proxies
Thread-Index: AQHP92m/oCajJyDnc0mgeTTyCvhpu5xPEGCAgAA6oIA=
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 20:32:33 +0000
Message-ID: <D7C33BD1-A370-4373-BFAE-4FBF1211C8C5@ericsson.com>
References: <82929B11-6CBB-40D4-94FE-A0169552C707@ericsson.com> <5457B533.6040904@zinks.de>
In-Reply-To: <5457B533.6040904@zinks.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.148]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <15210C6890878549A15E0914E1668C49@ericsson.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmplkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3RjfpWXiIwfTvahaHW2YxWSy7e4HF gcnj6Lz9rB5/F39gD2CK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4MrYdXsrS0Ejb8Xrcz8YGxi3cnUxcnJICJhI bNx2gQnCFpO4cG89WxcjF4eQwBFGiW03nrFDOIsYJaa+/MwKUsUmYCbx/OEWZhBbREBRYsHj 5+wgNrOAocSx1f1ANRwcwgKqEocmyUOUqElMvXIFqtxK4k/TejCbRUBFYvOnfWAjeQXsJWbt eA5mCwnESuxtmgZmcwpoSLRO+gRWzwh03PdTa5ggVolL3HoyH+poAYkle84zQ9iiEi8f/2OF sJUkGpc8YYWo15O4MXUKG4RtLbFw9W5GCFtbYtnC18wQNwhKnJz5hGUCo/gsJCtmIWmfhaR9 FpL2WUjaFzCyrmIULU4tTspNNzLSSy3KTC4uzs/Ty0st2cQIjLeDW34b7GB8+dzxEKMAB6MS D2/B9rAQIdbEsuLK3EOM0hwsSuK8C8/NCxYSSE8sSc1OTS1ILYovKs1JLT7EyMTBKdXAWBy0 P+yUqI154sQLUtGTJu2ScphYnbruS2FO9rIVhl0bXftn3VKL+/RfqVtD4/ec2BV1gp/OZL2d xMG2aL2oTLWzsZiO18w5bRG2fdeWXJRWWXQoc0PLOW//OTrcT09ryZ2+Fd4pInv+cmL8dbkJ Cwv/zwgNX1DArVzD49vP/mar7uTfuxjblViKMxINtZiLihMB5++SVZgCAAA=
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.180.251.48; envelope-from=salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com; helo=sesbmg22.ericsson.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.967, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XlOJ7-00064q-Cc 84bdae0980b691dbef7744a9ea893065
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WPD and Multiple Proxies
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/D7C33BD1-A370-4373-BFAE-4FBF1211C8C5@ericsson.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/27845
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi Roland,

thanks for the comments
see in line

On Nov 3, 2014, at 7:02 PM, Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de> wrote:

> On 03.11.2014 14:26, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
>> Users that select a proxy for optimization might still be required to accept the use of a proxy at their workplace or captive network of choice.
> Do you suggest to create dynamic proxy chains? E.g. the proxy at the workplace go out to the optimization proxy to fulfill user requests.

yes the idea is to investigate the possibility (i.e. the use case) to chain the proxies.
The fact that a particular context forces the user to accept a particular proxy in between, should not preclude \ from using
also proxies that the user has deliberately chosen to have in place for optimisation purposes or other kind of services (i.e. malware scanning).


>> The trick here is balancing the requirements of different use cases.
>>   Proxies that provide privacy features need to be used exclusively, otherwise they could risk packet sniffing or pervasive monitoring by other nodes and risk the same sort of exposure that brought down the Silk Road.  That's at odds with this scenario and we'd obviously need measures to ensure that this doesn't fail catastrophically.
> For a workplace proxy it may not be an option to allow privacy features, so I guess there are conflicting requirements.

That is an interesting point, that makes thinks even more tricky

br
Salvatore

>> Any thoughts from the group would be great.
>> 
>> br
>> Salvatore
>> 
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-web-proxy-desc-01
> Regards,
> Roland
>