- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:21:44 +1100
- To: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Nicolas, On 18 Nov 2013, at 8:19 pm, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> wrote: > > Le Lun 18 novembre 2013 04:12, Mark Nottingham a écrit : > >> * We can compromise and agree upon when and where HTTP/2 can be used for >> http:// URLs (e.g., for .local and RFC1918 addresses, and/or when >> alternate mechanisms for important aspects of security are layered in, >> whether that's opportunistic encryption or something else). This is where >> I think more discussion will help. > > I'm not sure one can identify "internal" addresses technically. "Internal" > corporate wans can be quite large and span multiple continents and address > classes This sketch of a proposal wasn’t meant to address that case; it’s more for local / home printers, IoT, etc. There’s a parallel discussion of “explicit proxies” that is more aimed at the enterprise case, as I understand it. That has very different properties that we need to figure out, of course. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 09:22:12 UTC