> Because privacy and security by default are a bad agenda to agree to? Taking away people's ability to host servers and services for themselves without having

> Because privacy and security by default are a bad agenda to agree to? Taking away people's ability to host servers and services for themselves without having to register with a DNS provider and a CA are two major privacy violations, and a roadblock to easy application deployment of applications on your own LAN. So yes, it's a bad agenda. Because it's not "by default". It's the only choice. You can't choose not to incriminate yourself and your identity to a centralised internet registry if want to host a service now. You may not realise it, but once again you as a representative of the http/2 crowd is using wildly misleading language.