RE: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet

> From: derhoermi@gmx.net
> To: mnot@mnot.net
> CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 03:50:23 +0100
> Subject: Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet
> 
> * Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >To reiterate -- some browser folks have stated that they will not be 
> >implementing HTTP/2.0 for HTTP without TLS in their products, so unless 
> >they become convinced otherwise, there will still be a *market* 
> >requirement to implement TLS if you want to get the benefit of HTTP/2 
> >with the broadest selection of clients.
> 
> It seems very likely to me that whatever has been stated was meant to be
> something far more nuanced. For instance, they may have meant that they
> will not personally write the code, but patches from others might still
> be accepted e.g. because the decision isn't up to them. Importantly, I'd
> think they respect and participate in the Standards process and evaluate
> any outcome carefully, which very much includes considering to implement
> HTTP/2.0 without TLS if the Working Group decides to mandate support for
> that.

Hi Bjoern
I cannot know what they meant, but I do know what they stated. It was pretty much, "XXX has no interest in implementing HTTP/2 without TLS", where you can substitute "the Chromium project" and "Mozilla" for "XXX".  There were additional comments about using HTTP/2 as the carrot to get people to deploy TLS universally.
These comments may be what caused the conversation in the last few days to be so heated. It sounded like, "No TLS? Then no HTTP/2 for you!"
Yoav