On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 15:28:12 EDT, Keith Moore said:
> The simple fact is that I believe that the idea of interception proxies
> does not have sufficient technical merit to be published by IETF, and
> that IETF's publication of a document that tends to promote the use
> of such devices would actually be harmful to Internet operation and
> its ability to support applications. Reasonable people can disagree
Keith: I think that there's been sufficient commentary here that
interception proxies *do* have a place, both at the "server" end (for
load-balancing server, etc), and at the "client" end. However, I am
fully in agreement that interception proxies imposed anyplace other
than either endpoint of the connection is a Bad Idea, because a third
party can't be sure of the connection. I'm willing to do something at
my end, because I know that I wanted to connect to foobar.sprocket.com,
and what semantics that involves. foobar.sprocket.com can make
decisions, based on its knowledge that any packet on port 7952 is
either for their monkey-widget server, or invalid. But my transit
providers don't have any basis for making such decisions.
I'd have to vote against progressing it without language making this
distinction as clear as possible.
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech
