Re: multiplexing -- don't do it

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net
> wrote:

> Mike Belshe <mike@...> writes:
>
> > For the record - nobody wants to avoid using port 80 for new protocols.
>  I'd
> > love to!  There is no religious reason that we don't - its just that we
> know,
> > for a fact, that we can't do it without subjecting a non-trivial number
> of
> > users to hangs, data corruption, and other errors.  You might think its
> ok for
> > someone else's browser to throw reliability out the window, but nobody at
> > Microsoft, Google, or Mozilla has been willing to do that...
>
> And yet none of those vendors though twice before disabling https
> redirects,
> even though it was known they were widely used by proxies and captive
> portals,
> and no replacement was proposed, and it subjected and still subjects a
> non-trivial number of proxy users to hangs, data corruption, and
> other errors.
>

I don't think this is relevant to the http/2.0 discussion. I'm happy to
have this discussion, but perhaps you should start another thread.

I don't know what you mean by disabling https redirects...I think you mean
clients do what they are supposed to do with https URLs - verify the
server's certificate, which generally prevents these captive portals from
MITM'ing the connection. I understand this causes problems for captive
portal vendors, but I don't think it's valid to complain that clients are
correctly implementing https. I think captive portal vendors should come up
with a real proposal instead of relying on hacks.


>
> --
> Nicolas Mailhot
>
>
>