- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 21:29:05 +1000
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2 Jul 2014, at 9:24 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > For instance the $BIGWWW focus on running over TLS means that other > high-performance applications, such as News, TV and porn gets > saddled with a small and horribly inefficient (2^n-1, really ?) > framesize. Making smaller, more targeted proposals might help; e.g., a well-aligned but still small frame size. Unfortunately, you’ve left it until very late to get involved in detail, which makes getting such changes in more and more difficult. > I'm fully behind fighting MITM, but handicapping the protocol to > do so is like going to battle but refusing to get heathen blood > on your sword… You had me until you started talking about blood... > We should deliver tools, not policies. Agreed - except so much as the tools encourage or accommodate policies that may not be fully understood (but that’s a different discussion). Regards, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 11:29:34 UTC