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

Re: Response to HTTP2 expresions of interest

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 17:00:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjaxwGeVHCJ0wXrUCwy9r7xvcg-1_0Bhq6fSc_rmzz83w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "HAYASHI, Tatsuya" <lef.mutualauth@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
If this is worth doing at all it is something that can be most easily
performed in a HTTP/2.0 context where the whole legacy question
becomes moot-ish

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 2:32 PM, HAYASHI, Tatsuya
<lef.mutualauth@gmail.com> wrote:
> PHK's ideal world, I also share it.
> However, it is not understood whether it is contained in the present
> WG charter.
> I still think that our goal is ambiguous.
> To speak of extremes, we have a two targets.
> 1)
> Efficiency is improved. and compatibility is maintained as much as possible.
> 2)
> The ideal which deserves HTTP/2.0 and which can be used for 20 years
> or more is aimed at.
> These are not contrary.
> We have to pursue the both as much as possible.
> But, The semantics must not change.
> I think that the name of HTTP/2.0 is making a goal difficultly.
> I thinking...
> ex) HTTP layer Session is necessity?
>   If it is HTTP/1.1tris?
>   If it is HTTP/1.2?
>   and If it is HTTP/2.0?
> We need to deepen an concrete discussion more.
> --
> HAYASHI, Tatsuya
> Lepidum Co. Ltd.
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 08:21:03PM -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>wrote:
>>> > TLS communication today already have an envelope consisting of
>>> > IP# + TCP port numbers, and unless your adversary is totally
>>> > incompetent, he also has the DNS lookup that gave you that IP#.
>>> >
>>> > QED: Putting the "Host:" in the HTTP envelope does not leak any
>>> > information your adversary doesn't already have or can guess.
>>> >
>>> That?s just not true.  There are lots of ways to get to a particular origin
>>> server, and I would think that for a malicious person in the middle, the
>>> Host header would be more interesting than the ostensible IP address.  On
>>> the other hand, I do understand why a payload-oblivious load balancer would
>>> need to see that header.  It is simply the case that we have two objectives
>>> which are apparently in conflict. No, I don?t have a solution (or even a
>>> strong opinion, yet, although I?m inclined to err on the side of protecting
>>> user privacy at the expense of almost all else).  -Tim
>> Well, TLS offers SNI which also reveals the Host header in clear text, so
>> your extreme view of privacy doesn't seem to be shared as much wich even
>> these guys. Also, building a protocol fortress that prevents anyone from
>> implementing it in real life is an effective way of protecting user privacy
>> since the user won't have access to anything and thus won't reveal his
>> intents. Maybe some people would even consider that revealing they have
>> access to the internet affects their privacy so they need an invisible
>> connection... At one point a limit must be set, otherwise it becomes
>> totally non-sense. Host and IP are reasonably interchangeable, are used
>> for routing the protocol to its destination, and if someone doesn't want
>> to show what host he's going to, he'd better leave the net. And if even
>> the TLS guys accept this, then I think this is a much acceptable limit.
>> Regards,
>> Willy

Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Saturday, 14 July 2012 21:01:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:04 UTC