On 6/2/2015 2:19 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx > <mailto:touch@xxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > On 6/2/2015 11:51 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx <mailto:touch@xxxxxxx> > > <mailto:touch@xxxxxxx <mailto:touch@xxxxxxx>>> wrote: > > > > On 6/1/2015 10:16 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: > > > Do it. Do it boldly and fearlessly. Make the statement and implement it. > > > > > ... > > > Don't be tied to legacy. Anything that doesn't support HTTPS at this > > > point needs to upgrade and deserves to be broken. > > > > Leaving out the have-nots - or those whose access is blocked by others > > when content cannot be scanned - isn't moving forward. > > > > > > [citation-required] > > > > Where is this place where the entire HTTPS web is not accessible? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia > > Search for HTTPS. > > > This is all that that search turns up: > """ > Chinese authorities started blocking access to the secure (https) > version of the site on 31 May 2013, although the non-secure (http) > version is still available – the latter is vulnerable to keyword > filtering allowing individual articles to be selectively blocked. > Greatfire urged Wikipedia and users to circumvent the block by using > https access to other IP addresses owned by Wikipedia. > """ > > If censors want to block the IETF website, they can do it with or > without HTTPS. But that's not what they DID. They blocked the activity they couldn't monitor. Joe