- From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:20:32 -0800
- To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I don't know what the "do it in HTTP/2 itself" proposal is. I thought your proposal was advertising opportunistic encryption in DNS. Anyhow, we don't support any type of opportunistic encryption, especially unauthenticated. We want people to use https://, therefore we more or less only plan to support HTTP/2 for https:// URIs. Let me know if this still leaves anything unclear. On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:05 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> > wrote: >> >> Me speaking as a Chromium project representative here: >> We talked about this internally amongst Chromium project members, and >> the *current consensus* opinion is that Chromium does not support >> opportunistic encryption, nor would we implement it were such a >> mechanism standardized (I'm assuming no one's proposing mandatory to >> implement...the draft does not appear to do so). > > > Just to try again to get clarity: do you not support any type of > opportunistic encryption, or just the type given in this draft? Others have > proposed other methods, such as my "do it in HTTP/2 itself". I can interpret > your message both ways. > > --Paul Hoffman
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2013 05:20:59 UTC