- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:04:44 +1100
- To: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On 1 Nov 2014, at 6:42 am, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com> wrote: > >> The arguments that this is a process or layering issue are not valid; both have been refuted. > > It would be great to hear the refutation to Microsoft’s position that the UTA is more appropriate for mandating TLS implementation API enhancements, and not the HTTP WG: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014OctDec/0114.html The only applicable argument I see there is "Historically this type of document is separate from the core protocol”. UTA was chartered to recommend best practices for existing protocols, and give guidelines to future protocols; it does not constrain what we can do with TLS. I specifically asked this question during the chartering process for UTA and was satisfied with the result; HTTP/2’s approach to TLS is *not* controlled by UTA. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2014 22:05:09 UTC