W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:49:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7RbehO3sLqHH1dLT5SQT14Ka1=JiW5Kj-Dw8gU17mhyA=Qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2013-11-14 18:49, Roberto Peon wrote:
>>
>> There is a means of opting out, however, which exists and is widely
>> deployed: http1
>
>
> And the WG has a mandate to develop a replacement for 1.1, called 2.0. If we
> do not indent to develop that protocol anymore, we should re-charter.
>

Very emphatic +1. So far the general sentiment of those pushing for
TLS-only seems to be "If you don't want to be forced to use TLS,
tough, you don't get to play with us then". That's not going to work.

- James

>
>> There was near unanimity at the plenary that we should do something
>> about pervasive monitoring, and while I don't believe that there were
>> any actuonable , unambiguous dieectuves , the spirit of the room was
>> quite clear. The IETF intends to attempt to do something about this.
>
>
> Yes. What we disagree on what that means for HTTP: URIs.
>
>> ...
>
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 18:50:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:19 UTC