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

Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:58:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNeKAqTE9YRfdBUN-TtZ7K-2zykG0AwBEb+BzbBeuSziPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Which devs?

Most developers that I know will choose "reliable" over "easy to debug" any
day of the week. It is not pleasant dealing with heisenbugs. It is better
to not have to debug.

In locales where one knows that http2 can work effectively in the clear,
e.g. corporate LANs, one will be able to do so.

On Nov 14, 2013 8:02 AM, "Zhong Yu" <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:07:07PM +0900, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> >> If I Rob this correctly, this may mean that a future version of IE will
> >> implement HTTP 2.0 without encryption for http: URIs.
> >>
> >> Next let's say that Apache 3.0 implements HTTP 2.0 which can be
> >> configured to run without encryption (after all, Apache is used in
> >> internal contexts, too).
> >>
> >> What's the chance of this *not* leaking out into the open internet and
> >> forcing other browser vendors to also allow HTTP 2.0 for http: URIs
> >> without encryption? After all, experience has shown that users quickly
> >> abandon a browser that doesn't work for some websites, and that browser
> >> vendors know about this and try to avoid it.
> >
> > And so what ? It's not a problem. Some browsers will likely implement
> > it at least with a config option that's disabled by default, and these
> > browsers will be the ones picked by developers during their tests,
> > because developers pick the browser that makes their life easier.
> And web servers also need to have an option to operate HTTP/2.0 on
> plain TCP to make dev's life easier. It's difficult to see why
> browsers/servers would risk to alienate developers. So most browsers
> and servers would end up with the capability of talking HTTP/2.0 over
> TCP.
> >
> > Willy
> >
> >
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 19:59:10 UTC

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