On 5/6/16 12:53 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote: > > 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.
rfc 2804 says nothing about extending the security envelope of protocols. it does state that we do not consider requirements for wiretapping as part of protocol development. > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzme...@nic.fr> > To: "Adrien de Croy" <adr...@qbik.com> > Cc: "Shane Kerr" <sh...@time-travellers.org>; "dnsop@ietf.org" > <dnsop@ietf.org> > 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 <adr...@qbik.com> 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 >> DNSOP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
