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: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 06:25:57 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20131118052557.GJ18577@1wt.eu>
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 03:04:58PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Also, I'm wondering what people (both sides) would think if we allowed http/2
> for http:// URLs (with or without opp encryption) for .local and RFC1918
> addresses, to ease the IoT / printer cases.

I like this idea of making an exception for RFC1918 and .local addresses.
We could use the same principle as an exception for accepting to connect
to servers running a self-signed cert and reject it in all other situations
(non .local and non rfc1918).

Willy
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 05:26:23 UTC

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