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

Re: Response to HTTP2 expresions of interest

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:41:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6itLXj1W2uGEFvMEemi5hBrYjmaeYq-8b0oJvzKdvCh34Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
How much information needs to be in the unprotected envelope?  Because one
of the benefits of transport-level security is that a snooper, for example
a government tracking dissidents, knows little/nothing about my traffic
aside from the routing.  Not a rhetorical question.  -Tim

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>wrote:

> In message <
> CAMm+Lwgr1cnM3-iz_quKhN9N_dS1d6qdv26kSvKZ+T_Hr9L+hw@mail.gmail.com>
> , Phillip Hallam-Baker writes:
>
> >5a) The TLS-HTTP gap
> >
> >Now as far as HTTP is concerned, headers have security implications
> >and so HTTP is not going to be acceptably secure without either
> >transport layer or packet layer security.
>
> I disagree.
>
> What HTTP lacks is a clear distinction between "envelope" and "body"
> the way SMTP and NNTP have it.
>
> HTTP/2.0 would enable a lot more sites to run with cryptographic
> security, if there were an unprotected envelope for load-balancers
> to act on.
>
> I also think it should be possible to mix protected and unprotected
> requests on the same TCP session.
>
> --
> 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 Friday, 13 July 2012 17:42:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 July 2012 17:42:17 GMT