Re: I-D ACTION:draft-luotonen-ssl-tunneling-01.txt

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: New Standards"
• Previous message: Ari Luotonen: "I-D ACTION:draft-luotonen-ssl-tunneling-01.txt"
• In reply to: Ari Luotonen: "I-D ACTION:draft-luotonen-ssl-tunneling-01.txt"
• Next in thread: Ari Luotonen: "Re: I-D ACTION:draft-luotonen-ssl-tunneling-01.txt"
• Reply: Ari Luotonen: "Re: I-D ACTION:draft-luotonen-ssl-tunneling-01.txt"

Hi Ari,
hi all,
as I see, the draft is fine, and after assigning an RFC number we can
incorporate it by reference into 1.1 or 1.2 HTTP protocol.

I see only one unresolved case:
how to deal with multiple firewalls?
Consider company.com connected to the internet trough its firewall
'gatekeeper.company.com' and having an even more protected subnet
'finance.company.com' connected to company backbone trough a second firewall.
Currently we have not that many systems configured this way, but this should
not imply that in future the situation remains the same.

Andrew. (Endre Balint Nagy) <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>

• Next message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: New Standards"
• Previous message: Ari Luotonen: "I-D ACTION:draft-luotonen-ssl-tunneling-01.txt"
• In reply to: Ari Luotonen: "I-D ACTION:draft-luotonen-ssl-tunneling-01.txt"
• Next in thread: Ari Luotonen: "Re: I-D ACTION:draft-luotonen-ssl-tunneling-01.txt"
• Reply: Ari Luotonen: "Re: I-D ACTION:draft-luotonen-ssl-tunneling-01.txt"