RE: The 's' in https: more trouble than it's worth? [metadataInURI-31]

Sometimes I think that a fairly substantial portion of the TAG's job is
to come up with URIs and associated reasonably well-written documents to
arguments that have already been made.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of
> Dan Connolly
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:50 AM
> To: Roy T. Fielding
> Cc: www-tag
> Subject: Re: The 's' in https: more trouble than it's worth?
> [metadataInURI-31]
> 
> 
> 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 19:55:31 UTC