- From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:22:34 +0100
- To: "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Bruce Perens" <bruce@perens.com>, "Ryan Hamilton" <rch@google.com>, "David Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>, "James Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Le Ven 15 novembre 2013 08:05, Roberto Peon a écrit : > The technical problem is that entities are attempting to be helpful > (sometimes attempting to help the users, and some attempt to help > themselves), and are either failing to adapt with the protocol, or failing > to properly implement it. > Given that putting everything under one roof is infeasible/impossible (the > internet spans many different jurisdictions/countries), and given that we > cannot dictate what people deploy or not, the one technical approach that > has the highest chance of success is the one where content is encrypted. > Do I love this? Nah. But I've been unable to come up with a better plan > that would work. Can you come up with a plan that will work reliably? Be honest, use a different port and let people accept it if they're comfortable with your solution and their equipments can deal with the result. This is the only solution that will get you reliable adoption (trying to enter via the back door is not reliable, it only works till the watchman notices your little trick and puts a lock on it, so stuff will break at unpredictable times even if it passed at first) -- Nicolas Mailhot
Received on Friday, 15 November 2013 07:23:02 UTC