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

Re: Semantics of HTTPS

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:52:37 +1000
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F327570F-C128-418D-8185-B236407F684A@mnot.net>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>

On 13/09/2012, at 6:30 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:

> 
> Hi Willy,
> 
> On 09/13/2012 06:47 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:06:24PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> I haven't seen any more discussion of this. 
>>> 
>>> Being that both the TLS WG Chair and at least one security AD have both
>>> unambiguously said that it should be considered an e2e protocol (please
>>> correct if I'm wrong), we return to the original question --
>>> 
>>> Should we state that the HTTPS URI scheme implies end-to-end security (i.e.,
>>> between the user-agent and the origin server)?
>> 
>> I have thought a bit about the arguments made in favor of this and my
>> opinion has evolved on the subject. I think that we should probably keep
>> the https scheme as "end-to-end" so that the user is sure about this,
>> but in this case we'd need another scheme for the https from proxy to
> 
> Do you mean another URI scheme?
> 
> That might be a way forward since it'd allow both ends (UA, site)
> some choice in whether they'd allow middlebox snooping.


I really think a new scheme is a non-starter here...

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 08:53:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 September 2012 08:53:13 GMT