Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt

Will, Adrien,

On 12/12/13 9:28 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:

>> We are proposing (yet again) taking that choice away which I have a major
>> problem with.  It's a philosophical problem, I don't believe any of us have
>> the right to make those choices for everyone else, especially considering
>> (which few seem to be) the ENORMOUS cost.
> I believe you are incorrect in your understanding of the proposal.
> This particular draft proposal is about offering a mechanism for
> opportunistic encryption. It's a mechanism, and once again up to the
> site author's choice. Let me know if I misunderstood you.


It seems to all a matter of who gets choice.  Is it the site author?  Is
it the browser?  Is it the site administrator?  This conversation needs
to tie back to how proxies would engage in all of this in a way in which
they are 1st class objects and those lovely use cases like Eliot's
Island. (Thanks for that one, Mark.  I just want to run down a beach
yelling "Skipper!!!")  And then we need to see what is desired versus
what is possible, either with mostly existing code or with new code.

You stated it well earlier that you guys have a current position and not
a final position.  A lot of us would fit that bill, although our
positions may differ - for the moment.  That's the great thing about
driving toward consensus.
Also, some experimenting will help us find that consensus.  I'd love to
see a full diagnostic with swimming pool lane diagrammed out of who
speaks what when with intermediaries in the picture.


Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 20:45:20 UTC