IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard

Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk> Tue, 13 January 2015 09:44 UTC

Return-Path: <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE2A51ACDF4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 01:44:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.979
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TNvEZfH4GSKZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 01:44:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com (mail-lb0-f169.google.com [209.85.217.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15CB51ACD55 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 01:44:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id p9so1647448lbv.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 01:44:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Rh5p/Ut5u1Ja87pBDQsNMCYVe0JOhL2DA9iKZiYsF9M=; b=a1X49hJPtHfLORxWZQWjH6kSV0o0xF013lWF3hhspfKEQoylrcf2skc+PWZ/tJMXNS mTpxKamPIaH9QkSPAp9KMUFSGSRYDEIhjPnx+mbEVRxg+VUL5yqXIGh9/yqQhccTPfPY 8eXLMlgPGyD7pXmLe3Njzr8SI04V1hJx7QVcmSmbUicu9sydq20auRPsQW6daeo71Y0a rOxgZjSYKu/dmLjdv0AuAuOSD8oQKC80qy8AUJupRw1KIRbVFqj8K03bRJGGaHEWQt0f sgBkUh4BvioRxJ//SqLCYFUASZSCfDySfLs5OWouDaw01gXfnZXachZg6ADn9PfUIUHA bvoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk9Wp8tYlgJew5Xc4c1rilKFM5hscw+lvFwC5iFbAUEc1Uyho+PHGQlSqj1yxqrQ95AJTfY
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.44.129 with SMTP id e1mr41454754lam.43.1421142279514; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 01:44:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.85.149 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 01:44:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [2620:104:4001:72:b8f0:986f:84c7:8381]
In-Reply-To: <54B0DE42.5010103@NetBSD.org>
References: <20141231153045.2584.87794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54B0DE42.5010103@NetBSD.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:44:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CAH_hAJGVODjdsNHFH2mQGw5DF0cYR2C+ffgXBNWAV8kyppu_dA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard
From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
To: "Constantine A. Murenin" <cnst@netbsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/BTaPkXdQmyT7qlBqaeimxrkAQfw>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:02:08 -0800
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, mouse@netbsd.org, iesg-secretary@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, djb@cr.yp.to, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:44:43 -0000

On 10 January 2015 at 08:09, Constantine A. Murenin <cnst@netbsd.org> wrote:
> I am sincerely asking for the IETF to not approve HTTP/2 as a standard
> without the compatibility issues as above being addressed first.  The policy
> to abandon the http:// address scheme and adopt https:// will only promote a
> significant link rot for the future generations to experience well into the
> future (didn't we think TLS 1.0 was good enough?), and will curtail
> independent and hobbyist operators.

For the sake of clarity: no such policy exists in the specification as
drafted by this working group. The policy comes from specific
implementers, most notably Chrome and Firefox, as discussed by Amos
and Willy. I recommend taking your complaint up with those
implementers through their recommended feature request/bug reporting
channels.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email