Maybe you can explain why, if https is needed everywhere, that after
significant and extended arguing, the httpwg decided to make it optional
in http/2
I really don't see the point in making all those arguments again over
here in dnsop, when they were done to death many times in httpwg. Go
take a look there.
As for Stephen Farrell's view on it, yes we know his point of view on
the topic. I and many others disagree with his view on this.
There's also RFC 2804 which is much more sensible and less likely to pit
engineers against governments.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <[email protected]>
To: "Adrien de Croy" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Shane Kerr" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Sent: 7/05/2016 7:40:17 a.m.
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-03.txt
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 07:14:29PM +0000,
Adrien de Croy <[email protected]> wrote
a message of 72 lines which said:
Putting https where it's not needed (and it's not needed everywhere)
It is. If you don't know why, read RFC 7258 (6973 is useful, too).
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
