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

Re: Mandatory encryption *is* theater

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:37:48 +0000
To: (wrong string) ™ˆ™˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>
cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <30050.1377599868@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAA4WUYgn5jgTojch=Z7Kv=BONLzrwtyyjkuhHCkZ_FgnKE231Q@mail.gmail.com>, =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuIC
jpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= writes:

>> >I agree authentication would be nice to have,
>> >but I think it's unfair to criticize mandatory to offer *encryption*
>> >because of authentication.
>>
>> When you say "encryption", do you mean "privacy" ?
>
>I mean encryption, because that's AIUI what mnot hinted at in his Berlin
>presentation.

That answer doesn't really help me any...

In the email I cited, you used "encryption" as something apart from
"authentication" and that left (at least) me confused about what
the heck you were talking about ?

Referencing mnot's slides doesn't really help me there...

-- 
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 Tuesday, 27 August 2013 10:38:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:15 UTC