, IT)
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 12:20 PM
> To: specs@openid.net
> Subject: RE: HTTPS status
>
> May I argue that a secure end-to-end encrypted channel does
> not always equal SSL? I know that PKI is pervasive, but
> wouldn't want to rule out the potential of u
CTED]>
Subject: RE: HTTPS status
To:
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
That wording is better than I remember, but really with free certificates
being readily available, and the obvious need for prtecting users data, WHY
oh WHY is
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Kveton
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:33 PM
>> To: specs@openid.net
>> Subject: Re: HTTPS status
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Why is there such reluctance?
>>
>> I think there are a several rea
.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Kveton
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:33 PM
> To: specs@openid.net
> Subject: Re: HTTPS status
>
> [snip]
>
> > Why is there such reluctance?
>
>
[snip]
> Why is there such reluctance?
I think there are a several reasons why:
* Not everybody knows how to install/manage an SSL certificate
* Not every web hosting company allows multiple IP's for sites
* It wouldn't have been easy to get the adoption we're seeing with a MUST
* Majority of t
reluctance?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Atkins
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 6:14 PM
> To: specs@openid.net
> Subject: Re: HTTPS status
>
> Alaric Dailey wrote:
> > Eddy Nigg and I brought up
Alaric Dailey wrote:
> Eddy Nigg and I brought up the issue of requiring SSL a while back, since
> then I have been swamped, it looked like there was some more talk about it
> since then.
>
> I know that there are several other people, that are concerned about this
> too, and it has even been
