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

Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:11:18 +0100
Message-ID: <52838886.4060208@gmx.de>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-11-13 14:54, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 08:21:17AM -0500, Michael Sweet wrote:
>> I also believe that HTTP/1.x has been so successful because of its ease (and
>> freedom) of implementation. But IMHO restricting its use to https:// will
>> only limit its use/deployment to sites/providers that can afford to deploy it
>> and prevent HTTP/2.0 from replacing HTTP/1.1 in the long run.
> That's a good point. I'd say I know some people who push *terabits* of pink
> pixels over the net and who had never heard about HTTP/2 nor SPDY before I
> talked to them about it and who still don't see the value there. Just like
> they do zero TLS and do not expect to ever use it. So there's a use for
> everything.
> ...

We need so understand that there are two almost orthogonal 
considerations for "HTTP":

(a) whether somebody gets the wire-format related improvements (header 
compression, push, multiplexing)

(b) whether communication will be in the clear (1), encrypted but not 
authenticated (2), encrypted and authenticated (3)

Looking at our charter (<http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/charter/>):

> It is expected that HTTP/2.0 will:
> * Substantially and measurably improve end-user perceived latency in most
> cases, over HTTP/1.1 using TCP.
> * Address the "head of line blocking" problem in HTTP.
> * Not require multiple connections to a server to enable parallelism, thus
> improving its use of TCP, especially regarding congestion control.
> * Retain the semantics of HTTP/1.1, leveraging existing documentation (see
> above), including (but not limited to) HTTP methods, status codes, URIs, and
> here appropriate, header fields.
 > ...

...so if we don't define HTTP/2.0 for "http:" URIs, we'll be missing one 
of the goals in our charter.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 14:11:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:19 UTC