- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:50:42 +1000
- To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
- Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 19/09/2013, at 5:00 PM, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote: > I dunno - I'm still not in love with this - words without teeth are very close to pontificating, and I'd rather hold out for a protocol that actually walks the talk... Can we do that instead? :-) I hear you. I'm suspecting we're not going to be able to achieve consensus on this, especially since it isn't a technical argument. Unless the discussion converges on a broadly acceptable proposal in the next day or so, we'll go to LC without this text, and I'll record in the shepherd's writeup that this was a contentious issue. Note that one of the possible outcomes is that the IESG will send it back to us and instruct us to say something about interception; they could also decide we shouldn't. Having them make the decision saves us a lot of back-and-forth. One thing I'll reiterate; we're not expected to document the complete story regarding privacy, interception, etc; the only purpose of putting this text in was so that we mention -- not completely define -- the topic. AIUI there are other specs in the works for that. Regards, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 20 September 2013 00:51:20 UTC