Erik Nygren
Erik Nygren
It does seem worth explicitly clarifying how IPv6 interacts here as well. (ie, is it ever allowed?) If we explicitly support legacy IPv4 do we also need to support IPv6...
(Note that this comment quickly ratholes goes well past the scope of openscreenprotocol so likely belongs as a discussion on the TLS WG mailing list.) What really matters here is...
+1 for this feature. There are significant benefits to being able to run underlay infrastructure as IPv6-only, especially in larger environments where neither rfc1918 nor public IPv4 scale well. It's...
I think a desired approach might be something like Martin Thomson's HTTPS for Local Domains, but it would need to be defined in some other context. See https://docs.google.com/document/d/170rFC91jqvpFrKIqG4K8Vox8AL4LeQXzfikBQXYPmzU/edit#heading=h.cp9yfs7gg5p7 for an...
Hopefully this should actually be able to be merged?
It would be preferable to not have to burn IPv4 for this, plus this channel would only ever be sent encrypted in HTTPS requests whereas other options (different IPs, information...
Proposed to defer this to a future draft (and perhaps as part of an alt-svc-bis).
This draft is already past IESG and in the RFC editors queue. Any changes at this point (especially any with technical/normative impact) would need to be in subsequent drafts (or...
Added future draft label. (Not trying to stop conversation and didn't want to close it out, just wanted to document for the record that it wouldn't make it into the...
Laziness? Feel free to move it.