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

Re: MLS or TLS? There is more than one encryption option.

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:18:53 +0000
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <50243.1384546733@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAMm+LwitCMbU5Xo_fpDfjZGkZEa9H=qgoe=fneFN_SKFp2bTZg@mail.gmail.com>
, Phillip Hallam-Baker writes:

>Now that we are going to be going for preventing pervasive surveillance,

I hate to be the one to bring this up, but that is not in any way
shape or form inside the WG charter and not even remotely close to
any concensus I can detect.

HTTP/2.0 should, according to common sense run on any byte-pipe, or
as the WG charter says it, somewhat more convoluted:

	The Working Group will produce a specification of a new
	expression of HTTP's current semantics in ordered,
	bi-directional streams. As with HTTP/1.x, the primary target
	transport is TCP, but it should be possible to use other
	transports.

	[...]

	Explicitly out-of-scope items include:

	* Specifying the use of alternate transport-layer protocols.
	Note that it is expected that the Working Group will work
	with the TLS working group to define how the protocol is
	used with the TLS Protocol; any revisions to RFC 2818 will
	be done in the TLS working group.


Your proposal may be good or bad, but it is simply not the right
place for it.


-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Friday, 15 November 2013 20:19:17 UTC

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