- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 20:50:49 +1100
- To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
- Cc: "Oda, Terri" <terri.oda@intel.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
On 4 February 2015 at 20:00, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote: >> I don't know that I'd say *strong* objections, but I find it a hard to >> believe that this wouldn't eventually conflict with some internet of things >> plans. Or rather, with some "uh oh" IoT security issue mitigation plans in >> the future... > > > IoT worries me in general. This is a very vague objection. Features are very hard to revoke. And YAGNI suggests that you don't do the work until a concrete need is identified, at which point you will know for certain what you need to add. > [...] I'm in favor of allowing IPv4 addresses, [...] I certainly don't see a point of building a speculative feature for something like IoT without IPv6 support. Doubly so if it's not clear how I-o-Things will be identified in practice. As long as you have a reasonable idea how a solution might fit, why not wait until someone really needs that feature? You might find questions about matching https://2/ are easier to answer then.
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 09:51:16 UTC