- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 20:52:45 +1300
- To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
- Cc: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thanks for confirming. I think that this closes the issue. Is that right? (And don't worry about the title, I saw draft-ietf-..... and didn't even notice.) On 11 January 2017 at 19:37, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> wrote: > 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 07:53:17 UTC