Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio

You are saying that we should use a port other than :443 for https traffic?
... why?
What backdoor are we talking about?
-=R


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Nicolas Mailhot <
nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>