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

Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ?

From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:34:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CABaLYCurR8p9_A6m+uwfE5nsJmjUxS49VqOPMwdq1ZTK5s_RMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: patrick mcmanus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> On Mar 26, 2012, at 9:44 AM, patrick mcmanus wrote:
>
> > On 3/26/2012 7:56 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >> In message<CAAbTgTu7qbPiREWRRqFddgoko0FCt0jmxR=
> NP1gqsiARCwscew@mail.gmail.com>
> >> , Brian Pane writes:
> >>
> >>> Nonetheless, I think it would be reasonable for HTTP/2.0 to require
> SSL.
> >> I think you need to talk to some people with big websites ;-)
> > Existence proofs: google does all of their logged in user search over
> SSL, Twitter encourages SSL by default, Facebook is widely used that way.
> It pretty clearly can be done at scale. Its not free, but its worth it.
> >
> > More importantly - no user wants to use an insecure protocol - ever. Web
> protocol design should serve them first. They have an unmet expectation of
> privacy and security that we should meet by making the application protocol
> secure all the time; the mixed- content vulnerabilities of HTTP/1 make that
> clear to me.
>
>
> I've never considered SSL to be a means of securing the protocol.
> It does a decent job of hiding the exchange of data from passive
> observers, but the way that typical user agents handle certificate
> management lacks what I would consider a secure protocol.
>

There are two discussions here:
   a) should http be secured (and what "secured" means)
   b) whether SSL is the right choice

>From a practical point of view, there aren't a lot of alternatives to SSL
on the table right now.  Most people do agree that SSL does a reasonable
job of preventing eavesdropping.


> In any case, the notion that every user wants a secure protocol is
> irrelevant.  There are many examples of HTTP use, in practice, for
> which SSL/TLS is neither desired nor appropriate.  Even simple things,
> like the exchange that Apple devices use to discover network access point
> logins, cannot work with an assumption of SSL/TLS.  Likewise, many uses of
> HTTP are in kiosks, public schools, libraries, and other areas for which
> your concern as a user is less important than the organization's
> responsibility to prevent misuse.
>

I don't know of any examples where users want unsecured products or
protocols, actually.  We can't solve all security issues of course, but
that doesn't mean we should leave it wide open either.  And we can solve
much of the eavesdropping problem right now.  So the question is really -
why wouldn't we?


>
> There are ways to have both a secure protocol and visibility for
> intermediaries, but we don't have to agree to any of these "requirements"
> up front.  If the protocol proposals can't stand for themselves, then
> I have no need for a new protocol.
>

Protocols will only succeed if they provide real value.  There is a
subjective question of whether security and privacy is part of the value or
not.

Mike



>
> ....Roy
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 08:35:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:57 GMT