> On 8 Nov 2017, at 2:32, Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote: > > ➢ Given that we're almost there, and that only really browsers are > asking for these hacks, and that even some of those were almost ready > to ship without these hacks, I don't think that this is entirely > unrealistic as an aspiration. > > The Internet is more than just a couple of browser executables. > > Does nobody think of the servers? > > I do, but I don't really see how they're relevant for this question. Don't > the servers control the middleboxes they are behind? > > The smiley got lost. But smiley isn’t quite the right emoticon either.
Maybe we need a resigned to the harsh reality emoticon. Oh wait, there is one [1] > But to answer your question: no, the often don’t. And it’s not just the > middleboxes they are behind, but all those along the way. The server-side middleboxes tend to be somewhat higher quality and get more regular updates. There are also fewer vendors, so the problem is more manageable. > > To say that only browsers were asking for these hacks is also a little > disingenuous. It was a self-selected design group (to be charitable) that > mostly worked by themselves without the whole WG being involved. I’m glad we > seem to be ending up with something that works, with the only thing being > lost is some nerd esthetics, but let’s not forget the (to me, disappointing) > way the whole thing went down: a collaboration among, and only among, Google, > Mozilla, and Facebook. Sure. Whatever applies to browsers applies to every app or library that uses a web service. So wget, cURL, any of the libraries for Java, whatever you call the libraries behind apps on the various mobile platforms. Yoav [1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%F0%9F%98%8C
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
