Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio

actually I agree with this.

That's why I suggested a long time ago we should look at another port 
number for http2.  100 is available.

I know there is an enormous amount of pain with this path, but it could 
still be less than the current path.


------ Original Message ------
From: "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; "Bruce Perens" 
<bruce@perens.com>; "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Sent: 15/11/2013 9:25:22 a.m.
Subject: Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio
>As I seem to be saying over and over...
>
>We can wish for plaintext http2 over the internet on port 80 as much as 
>we want, but it won't happen since it is not reliable, and the nature 
>of that unreliability is not predictable.
>
>Few websites will be willing to turn on http2 if it means losing 10-20% 
>of their user base. And that really is what we are talking about.
>
>-=R
>
>On Nov 14, 2013 8:40 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 
>wrote:
>>On 2013-11-14 18:49, Roberto Peon wrote:
>>>There is a means of opting out, however, which exists and is widely
>>>deployed: http1
>>
>>And the WG has a mandate to develop a replacement for 1.1, called 2.0. 
>>If we do not indent to develop that protocol anymore, we should 
>>re-charter.
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Yes. What we disagree on what that means for HTTP: URIs.
>>
>>>...
>>
>>Best regards, Julian