Hi
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
>> From: Marc-André Lureau
>>
>> spice:// has a weird scheme encoding, where it can accept both plain
>> and tls ports with URI query parameters. However, it's not very
>> convenient nor very common to use (who really want to mix plain
> From: Marc-André Lureau
>
> spice:// has a weird scheme encoding, where it can accept both plain
> and tls ports with URI query parameters. However, it's not very
> convenient nor very common to use (who really want to mix plain & tls
> channels?).
>
> Instead, let's introduce the more readabl
Hi
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:13:06AM +0100, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote:
>> From: Marc-André Lureau
>>
>> spice:// has a weird scheme encoding, where it can accept both plain
>> and tls ports with URI query parameters. However,
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:30:18AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:13:06AM +0100, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote:
> > From: Marc-André Lureau
> >
> > spice:// has a weird scheme encoding, where it can accept both plain
> > and tls ports with URI query parameters.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:13:06AM +0100, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Marc-André Lureau
>
> spice:// has a weird scheme encoding, where it can accept both plain
> and tls ports with URI query parameters. However, it's not very
> convenient nor very common to use (who really want to
From: Marc-André Lureau
spice:// has a weird scheme encoding, where it can accept both plain
and tls ports with URI query parameters. However, it's not very
convenient nor very common to use (who really want to mix plain & tls
channels?).
Instead, let's introduce the more readable form spice+tls