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

Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:16:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNd_nYJGeFn4Dd_RrQt2KvUc0CKgMhkYmh+3eDSfEEu-oA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
One of the reasons why http/1.1 is what people use on port 80 is because
that is all which reliably traverses it.

Deployment of http2.0 on port 80, unencrypted, across the internet would be
a reliability and support nightmare. The spec could attempt to mandate it,
but I don't see that actually changing anything about how they would be
forced to deploy it over the internet. That would be a poor idea.

On Nov 13, 2013 8:17 PM, "Bruce Perens" <bruce@perens.com> wrote:

>  On 11/13/2013 09:58 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> There’s some notion that browsers might support HTTP/2 for http:// URIs when it’s *not* the “general/open” Internet; it sounds like your use case might fall into this bucket.
>  I'd be more comfortable with MUST than might. Making http an optional
> feature will guarantee that we are forced off of the mainstream once
> version 1.1 dies, in perhaps 10 years, and will have to use either open
> source or specially-crafted proprietary software at that time. Much as I
> love Open Source, I'm not sure we should be in the position of forcing
> people to use it.
>     Thanks
>     Bruce
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 08:16:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:19 UTC