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

Re: something I don't get about the current plan...

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:28:06 +0100
Message-ID: <528942F6.9070108@gmx.de>
To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-11-17 23:12, Mike Belshe wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Stephen Farrell
> <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie <mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 11/17/2013 04:53 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:
>      > OK - I see.
>      >
>      > I think you're mixing current stats (only 30% of sites today have
>     certs -
>      > seems high?) with incompatibilities - 100% of sites can get certs
>     today if
>      > they want them.  So HTTP/2 requiring certs would not be
>     introducing any
>      > technical incompatibility (like running on port 100 would).
>
>     But 100% of firewalls could open port 100 too.
>
>
> We measured this inside Google - its not 100% - but it was pretty good.
>   Maybe WillChan has those numbers.
>
>
>     And saying 100% of sites could get certs ignores the reality
>     that they do not and nobody so far seems to have a plan to
>     increase the 30%.
>
>
> I'm not understanding why they can't get certs?
>
> Do you mean they really can't, or that they just don't want to or
> believe its too painful?

There'll always be edge cases like the home router that requires initial 
config to even connect to the internet.

If we don't have a plan for using HTTP/2.0 to connect to these devices, 
then we're not really replacing 1.1. (Reminder: the charter expects us 
to do that).

 > ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 22:28:37 UTC

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