Kevin,
On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Darcy Kevin (FCA)
<kevin(_dot_)darcy(_at_)fcagroup(_dot_)com> wrote:
In retrospect, the definition of the “http” and “https” schemes (i.e. RFC
7230) should have probably enumerated clearly which name registries were
acceptable for those schemes, so that the following language from RFC 7320 (a
BCP) could be invoked against any attempt by an app – Onion or anyone else --
to inject their own unique brand of “specialness” into the interpretation of
the Authority component of their URIs
To echo Mark’s rebuttal of this statement, I would like to ask what benefit
would be served by doing so, please?
Thanks,
- alec
—
Alec Muffett
Security Infrastructure
Facebook Engineering
London
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail