W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:18:00 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=88eb-dWuE=HhnKy-AASMCMOyaVkfNbGPcfdpZ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, hybi HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 7 December 2010 09:07, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> It's worth testing. But GET+Upgrade+Hello requires an extra round trip to set up the connection.

There is no extra round trip for GET+Upgrade+Hello as it is proposed.

There would be an extra round trip if we want to wait for confirmation
from the browser that a server-nonce has been hashed correctly, but
this xtra RTT would apply no matter what handshake is used.


> Furthermore, GET+Upgrade+Hello doesn't do as good a job of defending against the other threat models we've discussed. You could combine it with masking of the payload and routing information, but at that point I don't think you could claim even a "semantics" advantage relative to CONNECT.

Indeed - the protections against the other threat models can be
applied equally to either handshake.  They are essentially unrelated
to CONNECT or GET+Upgrade.


>> I do come back to the fact that using another port does not give a
>> perfect success rate, but then neither does CONNECT or
>> GET+Upgrade+Hello.    Opening new ports seams like an easier ask than
>> convincing intermediaries to change their CONNECT and/or Upgrade
>> handling.
>
> It might be worth testing a new port (not 80 or 443 or any other well-known port) for success rate. It would also be
> worthwhile comparing TLS over port 443. It may be that 443 is the only option that gives a resonable success rate.

See the data I just posted to the other thread.  High well known ports
are no worse than using port 80 and using 443 is not that much better.

cheers
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2010 08:18:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:33 GMT