Re: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 15 August 2014 04:03 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 97A9E1A89EA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 21:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.57
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, 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 SlsE4INqUcaM for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 21:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
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 59C6F1A89E6 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 21:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XI8hf-0005b9-P1 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 04:01:23 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 04:01:23 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XI8hf-0005b9-P1@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XI8gp-0005BS-Q7 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 04:00:31 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XI8gp-0005Yu-0x for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 04:00:31 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.55] (unknown [118.209.12.212]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E910509B5 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 00:00:07 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <979C18AF-E6A3-49E2-A8C2-4D5E6CBE6470@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 14:00:05 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <42CE0D04-8860-44E1-B5A5-33CE38479ACF@mnot.net>
References: <979C18AF-E6A3-49E2-A8C2-4D5E6CBE6470@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.070, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XI8gp-0005Yu-0x 05448d797c2782b6d32b7755988b1315
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/42CE0D04-8860-44E1-B5A5-33CE38479ACF@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26604
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>
I'm hearing discussion on potential proxy work, but nothing that adds new information to the decision here - i.e. we shouldn't constrain how oppsec is used (or not) when a proxy is specified. Closing the issue. Cheers, On 29 Jul 2014, at 4:38 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/9> > > We discussed this issue in Toronto, and the sense of the room there was to close this issue with no action, since there are a lot of different scenarios for how a client uses a proxy, as well as different kinds of proxies which might cause clients to do different things. > > Any more discussion? > > Regards, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- ext#9: OppSec and Proxies Mark Nottingham
- RE: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies Richard Wheeldon (rwheeldo)
- Re: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies Patrick McManus
- ext#9: OppSec and Proxies Mark Nottingham
- Re: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies Amos Jeffries
- Re: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies Roland Zink
- RE: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies emile.stephan
- Re: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies Martin Thomson
- RE: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies William Chow
- Re: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies Mark Nottingham