RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-06.txt

Kari's feedback, I'll let him weigh in with his own opinion.

As I understand the issue, I think removing "tls-ports" from this particular example is sufficient.  As noted, there's nothing that breaks if they're both present (so normative prohibition probably not needed); it's just silly to do so, and we shouldn't encourage it by including it in an example.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 4:38 PM
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Cc: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>; HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-06.txt

On 24 June 2016 at 07:44, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:
> But "tls-ports" at the same time tells me what ports I should accept referrals to *without* requiring authentication.

So you are saying that any port is OK if you can authenticate the server.  That's true.  Is this as simple as removing the example, or do you think we need to say that the two members are mutually exclusive?

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2016 23:53:03 UTC