- From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:02:12 -0600
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. So you would rather leave them in the HTTP/1 world? > > -=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. >> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2013 22:02:44 UTC