W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1999

RE: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 draft available

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:10:04 -0400
To: "John Stracke" <francis@ecal.com>, "Http-Wg@Hplb. Hpl. Hp. Com" <http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-ID: <004d01bec252$3b2a7e60$954768c0@oyster.agranat.com>

> From: francis@ariel.local.thibault.org On Behalf Of John Stracke
>
> Scott Lawrence wrote:
>
> > Part of the goal here is to show how secured and unsecured
> traffic in any
> > protocol can share a TCP well known port, so that we can get away from
> > assigning two ports to each protocol.
>
> But aren't there security benefits to having separate ports
> (e.g., making it
> possible to run your secure server in a separate process)?

There is nothing about the proposal that prevents that; I may run my secure
server at http://www.example.com/ and the secure one at
http://www.example.com:2000/ or the other way around.  My server may use the
IP address or a Host header value, or a part of the URL path to determine
that the request needs to be upgraded to a secure connection.

In any event, separate ports are orthogonal to separate processes; one does
not imply or require the other.

--
Scott Lawrence           Director of R & D        <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.  Embedded Web Technology   http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 1999 18:14:28 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:31 EDT