W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: HTTPS, proxying, and all that...

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 08:52:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7RbeK=XC_+w8YciJ-0gR6WN5+psaE2PabmD4wfz+wDimM0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Ilya Grigorik <ilya@igvita.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Well.. jumping into in a bit.. there is this draft:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-00

In it, I define an experimental in-session key negotiation mechanism built
around SPDY's framing mechanism. The way it's defined, it would allow for
both hop-by-hop and end-to-end encryption scenarios and provides a much
more flexible model than what exists today with TLS... for one, security
can be negotiated and renegotiated on the fly without tearing down and
reestablishing the tcp connection. Within a single SPDY session you could
actually have multiple layers of encryption going on, with the SYN_STREAM
and the DATA frames each being encrypted using distinct keys negotiated
with different entities involved in the connection.

I will stress that, for now, this is entirely theoretical and experimental,
but something like this would address the use case.

- James


On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>wrote:

> Ok I think this has wandered far enough for me. Send me a link to your
> draft when it's ready.
> S
>
> On 11 Jan 2013, at 20:44, "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
>
> > --------
> > In message <50F0774A.6010706@cs.tcd.ie>, Stephen Farrell writes:
> >
> >>> There is nothing "state of the art" about mixing p2p and e2e
> >>> trust and security, PTT's and banks have been doing it for
> >>> centuries.
> >>
> >> Feel free to post details. I at least don't know what
> >> you mean.
> >
> > I'm sure you do, you just don't know that you know it.
> >
> > If you are working in a big organization, I'm sure you don't
> > go to the post-office yourself, you have an intern mail-service
> > that will do so for you, and thanks to the separation of
> > envelope from message, they can do so, without opening your
> > letter.
> >
> >> (I'm also not aware of how 16th century PTT's operated
> >> to be honest. RFC 1149 perhaps?:-)
> >
> > Amongst other technologies.
> >
> > I'm sure the chinese and the romans would beg to differ, but
> > read for instance:
> >
> >
> http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/heritage/the-oldest-post-office-in-the-world-1-465812
> >
> >>> The problem the HTTPbis effort has, is that it's trying to
> >>> improve on one of the worlds most popular and used protocols[1].
> >>>
> >>> Addressing some of its actual user-perceived shortcomings would
> >>> be a very smart move from a marketing point of view.
> >>
> >> Yes, but this isn't a marketing exercise.
> >
> > Ask the IPv6 people if they still think that was a smart
> > position to take.
> >
> > Catering to your users needs is a good way to win adoption.
> >
> > --
> > 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 Monday, 14 January 2013 16:53:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 January 2013 16:53:50 GMT