- From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 07:48:25 +0200
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 06:25:57AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > 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). What's correspondent to RFC1918 on IPv6 side? RFC4193 (yeah, not exact same)? Also, semantics of .local couple it to single-link DNS-SD. There is now work on progress with multi-link DNS-SD, which is also local in scope but won't use .local. In fact, MDNSSD might sometimes anchor to names that look global... Whee, edge cases... -Ilari
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 05:48:51 UTC