Re: Intercepting proxies - yet again

Nicolas mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> Thu, 07 March 2013 11:09 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E6821F8D63 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 03:09:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.354
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=5.178, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3neDA1m4JAVn for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 03:09:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B129421F8D62 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 03:09:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UDYg6-0008Vh-5X for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:08:02 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:08:02 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UDYg6-0008Vh-5X@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <gix-ietf-http-wg@m.gmane.org>) id 1UDYft-0008U8-EL for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:07:49 +0000
Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <gix-ietf-http-wg@m.gmane.org>) id 1UDYfs-0004Sh-6f for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:07:49 +0000
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <gix-ietf-http-wg@m.gmane.org>) id 1UDYfq-0006Le-3M for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:07:46 +0100
Received: from 192.196.142.21 ([192.196.142.21]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:07:46 +0100
Received: from nicolas.mailhot by 192.196.142.21 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:07:46 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
From: Nicolas mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:07:11 +0000
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <loom.20130307T115424-976@post.gmane.org>
References: <emc512956a-b4be-4f35-8311-6ece7f9d0260@bombed>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org
User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)
X-Loom-IP: 192.196.142.21 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:19.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/19.0)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=80.91.229.3; envelope-from=gix-ietf-http-wg@m.gmane.org; helo=plane.gmane.org
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-4.434, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2=2.896, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=0.865, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.628, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UDYfs-0004Sh-6f 63a62bb80b30f5e825a71e246498326d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Intercepting proxies - yet again
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/loom.20130307T115424-976@post.gmane.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16983
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 Adrien,

You raise a lot of the same concerns than me yesterday. So I can only confirm
the need to clean the Augean stables at the protocol level now and stop
relegating it to some future date or other workgroup.

The reason people deploy intercepting proxies now is not because there is any
wish for massive surveillance, but because they work and alternatives don't. So
please make the alternatives work.

Till discovery, configuration and negotiation of intermediaries is properly
specified in the protocol, the only working solution will be interception.
Because interception is the technical solution that complies with the
"intermediaries do not exist" situation created by not specifying how to manage
intermediaries in the first place.

Explicit proxies should not mean 'proxy was configured somewhere outside the
protocol'. Client roaming is too complex to work with a static proxy definition
and the only communication channel that is sure to exist between the client and
the intermediary is http. Intermediary setup really needs to be dynamic and at
the http level (and negotiated, so the user can decide if he accepts to use an
intermediated network path or not).

Thank you

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot