- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:56:53 +0000
- To: Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <CAAbTgTu7qbPiREWRRqFddgoko0FCt0jmxR=NP1gqsiARCwscew@mail.gmail.com> , Brian Pane writes: >Nonetheless, I think it would be reasonable for HTTP/2.0 to require SSL. I think you need to talk to some people with big websites ;-) There are a large swath of the HTTP traffic that doesn't need and cannot afford the overhead of crypto and if you mandate that HTTP/2.0 use crypto, they will simply stay on HTTP/1.1 forever. If we act sensibly and make room for multiple transports, it is a non issue, because then you can have one transport with and one without crypto. Which is amazingly just like the situation today: The servers which care about ident/auth/integ/priv/... run HTTPS, everybody else runs HTTP. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 05:57:19 UTC