Re: impact of 9.2.2 changes and discussions on opportunistic encryption draft

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 31 October 2014 11:56, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org> wrote:
> > If everyone sticks with #1 or #2 and only uses #3 for the HTTP-TLS case
> > we're fine.
>
>
> That's not an *if*, that's a *requirement*. You can't have a
> situation where both peers have different expectations regarding a
> critical feature like authentication.
>
> If -encryption fails to make that clear, let's work on that.
>
Is it clear to people how the different drafts interact?
In particular, if someone were to decide to not implement -encryption
but implement with altsvc then you'd end up with them using #3
all of the time in a way that is indistinguishable.
 Erik