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

Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 20:27:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6ispHNAmGM=5UOuu03UQX+MFbPbUWC-13YR8TGPr4ohAoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Um, I see some debate on the issues breaking out in the comments.  I’m not
the chair, but if it were, I’d holler at you to have those arguments here;
I made sure that every bullet point in that doc had an unambiguous address,
so you can say in email that “C2.4 isn’t a problem because...”  My goal was
to propose a candidate structure to have the debate around, not an
alternate place to have it.


On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> There has been a *whole lot* of traffic on this subject.  It’s fascinating
> that the meeting of minds is so difficult, and any possibility of that
> happening is made more difficult by the discussion skewing back and forth
> across the road.
>
> To help sort things out in my own mind, I just went and read the last few
> hundred messages and attempted to curate the pervasive/mandatory encryption
> arguments, pro and contra.  It’s in a Google doc that’s open to comment by
> anyone: http://goo.gl/6yhpC1  Hm, is there a handy wiki platform
> somewhere that can stand up to the pressure?
>
> I don’t know if trying to organize the talking points is generally useful,
> but I sure found it personally useful; maybe others will too.
>
> Disclosure: I remain pretty strongly in favor of as much mandatory
> encryption as we can get, so that may have filtered my expression of the
> issues.  I've version-stamped this: 2013/11/16, and promise not to change
> it in case people comment on it.
>
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 04:28:22 UTC

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