Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security


On 11/15/2013 05:18 PM, Roberto Peon wrote:
> and even
> submitted and contributed to a couple of drafts on the topic.

I don't know if you mean a TLS MITM proposal or something

In the former case, please accompany any such proposal with
an analysis of the set of 176 RFCs [1] that reference 5246
and the 91 that refer to 4246 [2] and the 167 that refer to
2246 [3] to demonstrate that MITM'ing all of those is a good
and safe plan. And of course that ignores the non-IETF things
that might use TLS, which I'm sure is some medium sized
chunk of the 1573 [4] references that google scholar throws

Thanks, (or rather, "No, thanks"),


Received on Friday, 15 November 2013 17:24:54 UTC