Re: [TLS] Fate of resumption

That's hearsay, not substance. I was looking for an actual technical
concern, not a replay of someone's gripes. I believe that James' angst
derives from not being permitted to arbitrarily extend the protocol in
novel ways, which has very little to do with the concern you alluded to.
On Oct 19, 2014 12:55 PM, "Peter Gutmann" <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:

> Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> writes:
> >On 18 October 2014 21:12, Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
> wrote:
> >>>With HTTP/2 poised to get deployed on much of the Internet,
> >>
> >> Given its embedded-device-hostile nature [...]
> >
> >You'll have to justify that one.
>
> So you want something more specific than a general reference to lots of
> discussion on the ietf-http-wg mailing list?  Hmm, how about this thread
> (one
> of several that have covered the issue):
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/0602.html
>
> James Snell of IBM summed it up pretty well:
>
>   First and foremost, it needs to be recognized that HTTP/2 has been
> designed
>   from the start to primarily meet the needs of a very specific grouping of
>   high volume web properties and browser implementations. There is very
> little
>   evidence that ubiquitous use of the protocol is even a secondary
>   consideration -- in fact, the "they can just keep using HTTP/1.1" mantra
> has
>   been repeated quite often throughout many of the discussions here on
> this,
>   usually as a way of brushing aside many of the concerns that have been
>   raised. So be it. It's clear at this point that HTTP/2 is on a specific
>   fixed path forward and that, for the kinds of use cases required by IoT,
>   alternatives will need to be pursued.
>
> Peter.
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>