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

Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio

From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 11:00:38 +0100
Message-ID: <c7a6afc213f462ecc0d42ccbd23ac33e.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
To: "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Le Dim 17 novembre 2013 03:28, Amos Jeffries a écrit :

> Exactly the same arguments apply to staying with port-80 in the first
> place. There will be initial pain, but things will straighten out
> eventually.

Not at all. It's basic deployment principles. With a separate port people
can unblock it when they are ready to use it (ie when their equipment can
access it). It's an add-desirable-feature logic.

With re-use of port 80 you make an existing port unreliable. And the first
reflex of the people you're suddenly messing up with will be to request
filtering of the port 80 parasites from their providers. (it will only
take about three roasting by users who got sold a not-http1 port 80
solution for the operators to straighten their terms of service to get rid
of the screamers). It's preserve-service-integrity put-out-the-fire logic.

And good luck getting them to consider unblocking later once you've
annoyed them enough.

The basic fact is that network operators are accountable for their
service, which requires them to be in control, and any attempt to wrest
this control via technical trickery will be stamped upon hard because the
operators need this control to keep their job.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 10:01:08 UTC

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