💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 005842.gmi captured on 2023-11-14 at 09:49:24. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

<-- back to the mailing list

[announce] Delegation of responsibility for spec finalisation

Petite Abeille petite.abeille at gmail.com

Tue Mar 2 08:14:06 GMT 2021

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
On Mar 2, 2021, at 01:52, Sean Conner <sean at conman.org> wrote:
Second question: is there any reasonable way to decouple the Transport
Layer Security requirement from the Gemini protocol itself?
Short answer: no.

Let me rephrase the question: would it be possible to edit the Gemini specification in such a way that it makes TLS a SHOULD, not a MUST.

This is purely an editorial adjustment, which would leave the door open for alternative transport layer beside TLS.

Thoughts?

±0¢