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

Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity

From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:30:35 +0000
To: "Mike Belshe" <mike@belshe.com>, "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: "patrick mcmanus" <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <em1a59e5e2-cf84-4ca6-9b82-fd0cfd38ef22@boist>

------ Original Message ------
From: "Mike Belshe" <mike@belshe.com>
To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: "patrick mcmanus" <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>;"ietf-http-wg@w3.org" 
<ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 29/03/2012 2:30:29 a.m.
Subject: Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity
>
>
>On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> In message <4F72FD22.3020106@mozilla.com>, patrick mcmanus writes:
> 
> >I disagree pretty strongly that confidentiality is not a core 
> desirable
> >property for the web.
> 
> As is kittens, pink ponies and world peace.
> 
> However, in real life all things come at a price, and the price
> of confidentiality is too high for certain classes of websites.
> 
> >The notion that consumers of adult content don't care that their
> >activities are broadcasts in detail to their friends and family is
> >bizarre to me.
> 
> I'm sure pornsites are willing to offer enhanced service for a
> price, if there is a market, in fact I will absolutely guarantee
> you that they will be the first to make money out of "nobody can
> see you surf porn" if there is a market.
> 
> 
> And just to be sure we're not talking past each other here:
> 
> There are two costs of TLS:  CPU cycles and latency.
 
 Thats the whole point of SPDY - we just handed you a protocol which 
 embeds SSL but is still has lower latency than HTTP. 
  
how do you introduce more RTTs and reduce latency?  The 2 are 
incompatible.
  
Unless you're claiming that compression reduces transmission time due 
to smaller packets?
  
To which I would argue that the extra round trips in existing latent 
situations would far outweigh difference in packet transit time.  At 
least half the time added is due to extra acks.
  
If you can do "TLS" without sending and receiving TLS frames, 
negotiating ciphers, sending certs.  Then it's not TLS.
  
Another ENORMOUS cost is the burden of acquiring and managing 
certificates.
  
There are a lot of problems to be solved there before it's ready for ma 
and pa to install on their toaster.
  
  
  
Adrien
  
> 
> Many sites will object to both of these, but most seem to focus
> on the CPU cycles.
> 
 
 These are cheap and getting cheaper every day. 
 
  
  Latency is much more damaging, not so much for big sites like
  Google, Yahoo and FaceBook which have data centers through out
  the world, but for sites with just one webserver somewhere on
  the world, the difference between 1*RTT and 4*RTT is a lot of
  latency to throw at the user.
 
 The higher the RTT, the bigger the win for SPDY.  So this claim is 
 just false. 
 
 Mike
 
  
  
  --
  Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
  phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
  FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
  Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by 
  incompetence.
  
 
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 18:31:16 GMT

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