- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:50:21 -0600
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 20:57 -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote: [...] > > There was some argument that http: is enough, combined with... > > > > Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 Khare and Lawrence May 2000 > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2817.txt > > Well, whoever argued that is flat out wrong and should read the HTTP > archives. How about we save them the trouble; i.e. excerpt the argument from the archives and include it in the metadataInURI-31 finding? I'm not sure where to start looking. Bonus points to anybody who beats me to it. > https is still needed to inform the client that privacy > is needed. Upgrade only removes the need for a separate port. I > explained it in detail when BEEP had the same issue, but I don't know > where the archives of that list went. Yet another reason to make this argument easier to find. > ....Roy -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 20 March 2006 19:50:32 UTC