On 4/3/2015 5:23 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Fri, 3 Apr 2015, Joe Touch wrote: > >> Yes, but it's also important IMO to allow HTTP access and not require >> HTTPS. >> >> I.e., the reason for the shift should not be to force use of a secure >> connection. Some paths will drop anything they can't inspect, and >> there's no reason to force that here for users who don't want it. > > I don't think I agree. And neither does RFC 7258. So you'd rather I can't get the file? That's NOT what that RFC says. The RFC actually has no 2119 language in it anyway. > If you are on a network that needs to MITM your HTTPS, it should run you > through their SOCKS / PROXY and install the right trust anchors on your > machine. So let's say that "network" is run by your government, and they don't want to do that. You're OK with denying access? I don't think that's appropriate. Our documents are not "only for those who have non-monitored access". Joe