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: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 22:09:30 +0000
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@gmail.com>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <em549a189a-da46-41d3-963b-4abaa5b5e3c1@bodybag>


------ Original Message ------
From: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
To: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>; "Paul Hoffman" 
<paul.hoffman@gmail.com>; "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 15/12/2013 08:41:00
Subject: Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for 
draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt
>On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Stephen Farrell 
><stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>>
>>What that leaves unclear for me is how the current 30-40% of web
>>sites that are setup for some form of TLS will suddenly become
>>99%. Without some other action on helping sites get certs, it
>>just won't happen would be my prediction.
>
>The ones who can’t/won’t deploy TLS stay with HTTP/1.1, that’s all.  Or 
>am I missing something?

Maybe you're missing the discussion we had about the 
futility/unacceptability of the "they can just use HTTP/1.1" argument.

>
Received on Sunday, 15 December 2013 22:09:34 UTC

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