W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)

From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:01:09 +0000
Message-ID: <4F442235.1060209@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>


On 02/21/2012 10:55 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> The approach we're advocating for this WG is to solicit well-formed proposals, select one and develop it.
>
> If there isn't one for HTTP authentication, how are you advocating we proceed?

I'm not thinking now in terms of advocating a specific
proposal for how to proceed.

Right now, I'm interested in what others reviewing the
draft charter think about this topic. That's the point
of having this discussion in the open like this.

(So maybe I should shut up for a while:-)

S

>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> On 22/02/2012, at 9:53 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 02/21/2012 10:40 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22/02/2012, at 9:19 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> So as in my initial mail the 1st question here is, what
>>>> does "modern" mean in this draft charter? E.g. does it
>>>> mean "same as the current framework with different
>>>> bits" or something else? If so, what?
>>>
>>> As discussed off-list, I'd be happy to drop this phrase from *this* charter, in anticipation of it being worked out in discussions about the *next* one.
>>
>> Well, I think the phrase does need to be replaced
>> by something else all right.
>>
>> I'm reluctant to omit mention of security entirely
>> of course and do want to know what's gonna be done
>> for authentication in a putative HTTP/2.0.
>>
>> Like I said, I'm pretty skeptical that any significant
>> change to security properties will be achievable at
>> that next charter stage.
>>
>>>> And then should it include adding some new options
>>>> or MTI auth schemes as part of HTTP/2.0 or even looking
>>>> at that? (I think it ought to include trying for that
>>>> personally, even if there is a higher-than-usual risk
>>>> of failure.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Based on past experience, I think the risk is very high, and we don't need to pile any more risk onto this particular project.
>>
>> Based on past experience the milestones for this will be
>> wildly optimistic and it'll really take five years so at
>> the end of 2017 we'll be right where we are in terms of
>> HTTP authentication for all of which time HTTP authentication
>> will be the "next thing" to do. (Ok, I'm exaggerating a
>> bit there.)
>>
>> I think both experiences are valid.
>>
>>> Also, most of the discussions about authentication and associated problems on the Web are *not* exclusive to HTTP or even protocol artefacts; they include concerns like UI and human factors, integration into hypertext, etc. As such, what we really need is a "whole of stack" focus on Web authentication; shoving it into this particular WG will, IMO, lead to a predictable failure.
>>
>> It is true that many sites don't use HTTP authentication
>> for UI reasons. I don't think it follows that doing nothing
>> is the right approach. (Well, one could argue to remove all
>> user authentication from HTTP I guess - is that one of the
>> proposals?)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>>
>>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham
> http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 23:01:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:56 GMT