Re: RFC1918 + localhost

But in many ways we don't have choice today.
If you are advocating for choice where both the client and any entity the
client connects to explicitly (potentially a proxy) can opt-in or opt-out
of encryption, then I'm with you.
If you are advocating for choice where the user and connected-entity get no
say in the matter, then I'm firmly in the not-interested camp.

-=R


On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:

>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
> To: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
> Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: 20/11/2013 9:20:59 a.m.
> Subject: Re: RFC1918 + localhost
>
>> In message <em8b9ccf82-905d-4929-8c41-41362b024e61@bodybag>, "Adrien de
>> Croy" w
>> rites:
>>
>>  we need to forget about using this as a demarcation for allowability of
>>> plaintext or not.
>>>
>>
>> I'd say we need to stop this charade about us being in a position
>> to tell people where and when they can use plaintext...
>>
>> Are you really trying to reintroduce TLS with "NULL" crypto again ?
>>
>
> Me?  no, nor did I ever.  That would be a waste of RTTs.
>
> I'm advocating choice.  Like we currently have.
>
>
>
>> --
>> Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
>> phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
>> FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
>> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by
>> incompetence.
>>
>
>
>