- From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:37:44 +0200 (EET)
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>: (Wed Jan 11 00:29:30 2017) > On the one hand, if a server advertises alternatives that are broken, > that really is a server problem. On the other, clients do these sorts > of things all the time to improve robustness, so that's entirely > reasonable to do. I just don't think we need to *require* it. Yes, client needs that "Opportunistic Security for HTTP" (draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption) only to improve robustness. Otherwise "HTTP Alternative Services" (RFC7838) is enough. ( Seems that I have "draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding" on subject when it should be "draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption". Paste error? ) On the other hand "Opportunistic Security for HTTP" need specify only that part where collaboration between client and server is needed. / Kari Hurtta
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2017 06:38:22 UTC