and that even ignores the cost of obtaining and renewing certificates
for your home router so you can web admin it.
https makes no sense in many cases where http is currently used for
commercial and logistical reasons.
I guess nobody is going to bother looking at the httpwg arguments made,
-- Original Message --
From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer"
To: "Adrien de Croy"
Cc: "Shane Kerr" ; "dnsop@ietf.org"
Sent: 7/05/2016 10:13:37 p.m.
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-03.txt
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 07:53:50PM +,
Adrie
-- Original Message --
From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer"
To: "Adrien de Croy"
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" ; "Paul Hoffman"
Sent: 7/05/2016 10:10:35 p.m.
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for
draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-03.txt
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 07:45:23PM +,
Adrien d
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 07:53:50PM +,
Adrien de Croy wrote
a message of 39 lines which said:
> There's also RFC 2804 which is much more sensible and less likely to
> pit engineers against governments.
Our priority is the users, not the governments, I think. RFC 3935,
section 2: "The IETF
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 07:45:23PM +,
Adrien de Croy wrote
a message of 84 lines which said:
> when there were no MitMs, (discounting crytpo algorithm downgrade
> attacks against SSLv2) you could consider https to be secure
> (integrity and privacy).
Apparently, you have an analysis of TL
On 05-05-16 18:44, fujiw...@jprs.co.jp wrote:
>> From: Matthijs Mekking
>> Some comments:
>>
>> - Section 4.1 relaxes the restriction for resolvers from RFC 4035 to MAY
>> do aggressive NSEC/NSEC3 usage, while section 4.2 says that a resolver
>> SHOULD support aggressive NSEC usage and enable it b
