Re: [Masque] Proposed draft charter

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

i mostly think the same, but i'm concerned about one aspect of H3 that may be 
sufficiently far from the core protocol to warrant special focus on the proxy, 
and that is the enterprise situation where the endpoint trusts the proxy to 
either carry the transaction for it, or to refer the endpoint to a native 
flow. use case, employee doing their banking from their corporate desktop 
during their lunch break. this isn't a well-loved scenario because it's so 
close to the nation-state authoritarian situation. but i'd like to explore it 
with a group of open minded others, and i think doing it inside the QUIC or 
HTTP WG would make for big distraction.

there is, separately and precedingly, the the process by which an endpoint 
would discover, and know whether or not to trust, an enterprise outbound 
proxy.

am i in the wrong basket?

vixie

re:

On Monday, 27 January 2020 07:22:14 UTC Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> what motivates a separate WG vs. doing this in the QUIC WG?
> 
> There are aspects of the charter - e.g., one-sided (transparent to the
> peer?) cooperation with middleboxes, double-encryption avoidance (does this
> translated to an "unencrypted" mode for QUIC?) - that could have a large
> impact on the base protocol. That suggests to me tight coordination with
> the base protocol is essential.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lars

-- 
Paul