Re: [Lurk] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: Is this scenario covered by LURK?

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

(Answering with no hats...)

On 24/06/16 08:13, Youjianjie wrote:
> I've a question about the current use cases
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mglt-lurk-tls-use-cases-01), 

I suspect the authors of that are better placed to answer than
me, but I'll note that the list discussion so far has not seemed
to want to process that (or any) use-cases draft into an RFC.
While use-cases text may be useful within the WG, I'd not get
too carried away by it myself.

> do
> you think the TLS client needs to be aware of the decryption by the
> edge server? 

I think this was discussed on the list earlier with a conclusion
that it wasn't practical to expect the client to be aware that
lurk was being used.

> For example, in Content Owner / Content Provider Use
> Case, they are in different administrative domain. The TLS client is
> the subscriber of the content owner not the content provider.

Perhaps (though I'd word things differently).

As a user of web browsers I would personally like to know more
about the endpoints of my TLS sessions. Since that's never going
to be information that's useful for most users or TLS sessions,
I'd be fine if it were something advisory (e.g. maybe a non-critical
cert extension). But equally, I can see that folks would make the
reasonable case that such information isn't actionable at the TLS
client side, and hence oughtn't be sent. I'm fine that the WG
(should we form one) considers that.

Cheers,
S.