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

Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:25:22 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNeDGOxWNqSJSu8-4m_-JkY=YswOwB5=z0Rm7nZC4y3D=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
As I seem to be saying over and over...

We can wish for plaintext http2 over the internet on port 80 as much as we
want, but it won't happen since it is not reliable, and the nature of that
unreliability is not predictable.

Few websites will be willing to turn on http2 if it means losing 10-20% of
their user base. And that really is what we are talking about.

-=R
On Nov 14, 2013 8:40 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.
>
>  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 20:25:49 UTC

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