Thanks Julian, > I agree that there are problems with this system, but addressing those needs to happen in a different working group. And that would be...? Cheers, Greg -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA. On Nov 13, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2013-11-13 15:20, Tao Effect wrote: >> Hi list! >> >> I only just heard about this discussion now, and so I signed up on the list. >> >> I strongly urge the HTTP working group and the IETF (if that's a different entity) to not rush this and allow more time for feedback from the internet community. >> >> The IETF is not the internet, and I assure you that there are a lot of people out there working on various solutions independently. They have valuable ideas to share, and feedback to offer. I think it's worth giving them a chance to speak before declaring something "HTTP 2.0". >> >> What I have read so far of the suggestions here leads me to think the ideas are still very immature. >> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but is "HTTP/2.0" still using today's PKI/CA system? >> >> If so, it is not worthy of the "2.0" designation, as any system that preserves this broken system does not provide any meaningful security guarantees. >> ... > > Both 1.1 and 2.0 use the PKI/CA system only by indirection (through TLS). > > I agree that there are problems with this system, but addressing those needs to happen in a different working group. > > Best regards, Julian > >
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 14:41:05 UTC