Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption (was wrong draft) | Re: (rephrasing, sorry for duplicate) | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding

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 <> wrote:
> Martin Thomson <>: (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