Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio

There is a means of opting out, however, which exists and is widely
deployed: http1

There was near unanimity at the plenary that we should do something about
pervasive monitoring, and while I don't believe that there were any
actuonable , unambiguous dieectuves , the spirit of the room was quite
clear. The IETF intends to attempt to do something about this.

Even were that not the case, websites are changing to https for various
other reasons, and under Mark's proposed option C, http2 would be for those
URLs while http1 would be used for URLs with an http scheme.

Your larger problem is not that http2 will do encryption, but rather that
sites are choosing to use https. No protocol change or spec change can
protect the HAM community from that sea-change.

-=R
 On Nov 14, 2013 7:06 AM, "Bruce Perens" <bruce@perens.com> wrote:

> While the treaty is old, the latest FCC review of the issue concluded just
> a month ago, An encryption ban is there for the foreseeable future and we
> like it that way, the rest of that discussion belongs off-list.
>
> The presence of Amateur Radio makes an important point here, though: the
> global internet is far from the only user of the HTTP protocol. Comcast is
> another good example, they operate a huge private IPV6-only net over which
> there is lower-layer security and the high-layer band-aid of TLS is not
> necessary. Conventional internet traffic is encapsulated before being
> carried on the Comcast network, and is a minority payload there. But HTTP
> is an oft-used tool within the Comcast network.
>
> The creation of a Concealment Society carries its own evils, rather than
> being a completely benign and freedom-preserving response to the problem of
> government and corporate surveilance. Not everyone opposes such
> surveilance, and not everyone is in favor of private efforts to defeat it.
> An HTTP protocol which provides us with no means of opting out of the
> Concealment Society takes out of our hands a choice that should be ours.
>
>      Thanks
>
>      Bruce
>
> Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> >If there are good reasons to prefer the status quo that's fine, but that
> treaty is a fairly old thing
> --
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
>