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: 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>
Message-ID: <20131118054825.GA31205@LK-Perkele-VII>
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

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