- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 20:35:50 +0000
- To: William Chan (ιζΊζ) <willchan@chromium.org>
- cc: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <CAA4WUYhKLVyzPhOG2oQUiL0gJn0Zzye=H_opBpTEayZN9OdVuQ@mail.gmail.com>, =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGF uICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= writes: >I think this is the critical distinction. You are more concerned about >extensibility within a protocol that is typically implemented in user space >(HTTP/2), as opposed to a protocol that is typically implemented in kernel >space (TCP). Is that it? If so, I think that's a reasonable distinction to >highlight. Yes, it is a critical distinction. The reason IP-over-TCP-OPTIONS still mostly works, is that it is so hard to deploy and use that it has not become a big enough problem, just like almost no companies have RFC1194 filters in place. Being able to download a "unfiltering" version of a browser which tunnels contraband through port 80 or 443 will be met with an entirely different kind of resistance. -- 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 Wednesday, 2 July 2014 20:36:13 UTC