Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries from James Cloos on 2014-04-23 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from April to June 2014)

From: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:17:33 -0400
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Cc: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, K.Morgan@iaea.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, C.Brunhuber@iaea.org, Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>
Message-ID: <m34n1karsp.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org>

There is another good reason to remove the implicit c-e,

AFAICT, all of the browser vendors have refused to do HTTP/2.0 outside
of tls.  As such they will avoid the implicit c-e's declared raison d'
etre anyway.

Any intermediary which can MitM the tls will fubar things no matter what
an rfc specifies.

-JimC
--
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6

Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 17:21:09 UTC