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

Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt

From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:20:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYi0-ajcTUQJNsMSP_-JHhKBedAh32p8rr3Hf8p6chNWSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I don't know what the "do it in HTTP/2 itself" proposal is. I thought
your proposal was advertising opportunistic encryption in DNS. Anyhow,
we don't support any type of opportunistic encryption, especially
unauthenticated. We want people to use https://, therefore we more or
less only plan to support HTTP/2 for https:// URIs. Let me know if
this still leaves anything unclear.

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:05 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> Me speaking as a Chromium project representative here:
>> We talked about this internally amongst Chromium project members, and
>> the *current consensus* opinion is that Chromium does not support
>> opportunistic encryption, nor would we implement it were such a
>> mechanism standardized (I'm assuming no one's proposing mandatory to
>> implement...the draft does not appear to do so).
>
>
> Just to try again to get clarity: do you not support any type of
> opportunistic encryption, or just the type given in this draft? Others have
> proposed other methods, such as my "do it in HTTP/2 itself". I can interpret
> your message both ways.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2013 05:20:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:20 UTC