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: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 14:50:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcLCu5HDXfVTvHstrju+f7hW7Q8FP_xVkK+C8XA2czv3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Securing the user<->home-router interaction is mostly orthogonal from using
HTTP or HTTP2.

On the charter thing:
Where does the charter mandate that we must replace HTTP/1.1 in every
use-case?


-=R


On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote:

> 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 22:50:45 UTC

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