Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio

On 2013/11/15 3:40, Julian Reschke 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.

Yes. And on top of that, "the spirit of the room" is not what decides in 
IETF WGs. It's the discussion on the mailing list. And this discussion 
doesn't look conclusive at all so far to me.

Regards,   Martin.

Received on Friday, 15 November 2013 05:29:40 UTC