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

Re: Upgrade status for impl draft 1

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:58:36 +1300
Message-ID: <512EF20C.9030905@treenet.co.nz>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 28/02/2013 10:52 a.m., Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> Ted, the problem is that then we are essentially requiring TLS for
>> implementation of HTTP 2.0.  We've said we're not going to do that.
> I don't think this is quite right.  I think it means that if you use
> the DNS hints mechanism, you should expect TLS.  If you have other
> upgrade methods, they would not be impacted.  That doesn't require TLS
> for implementation of HTTP 2.0 itself.
>> But
>> also, the problem you describe is within control of both clients (albeit
>> with a linkage to DNSSEC) and servers by not linking two secure and
>> insecure services.  Ultimately what is proposed represents no change
>> because the server itself has to provide whatever capability we're
>> discussing.
> I don't really follow this; can you rephrase it?
> Ted

Can we take a step back folks and outline _exactly_ what it is that 
needs protecting here?

  - the datum responded by DNS?
  - the HTTP channel?

Status Quo is that neither is protected. Unless you are embedding all 
sorts of security related ifnormation into this RR is can be no worse 
than A/AAAA records pointing at a domain are today.

Some of you seem to be indicating that DNSSEC protected records pointing 
at non-TS connections is a major problem. It is *not* that major. That 
case is the Status Quo. We do want to improve it, but nothing proposed 
is making it _worse_ and nothing at either step is mandating anything 
about the other step.

Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 05:59:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:10 UTC