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

Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:14:25 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNc6NsYr+O4YHnqSzGmZmALBaW4hVEU-epwSH99RHuMZVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Seems mostly reasonable to me, though the MUSTs here are unenforceable.
-=R
On Nov 14, 2013 10:51 AM, "Michael Sweet" <msweet@apple.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> A proposal:
>
> 1. Include a discussion of proxy issues inherent in running HTTP/2.0 over
> plaintext: unreliable, undiscoverable, etc.
>
> 2. Include a discussion of common TLS issues - mostly pointers to the
> appropriate RFCs - that honestly talks about the concerns that have been
> expressed on this list.
>
> 3. Require client and server to support both http:// (with upgrade) and
> https:// (with ALPN)
>
> 4. Place a requirement on public-facing HTTP/2.0 servers: MUST NOT
> advertise HTTP/2.0 support in response headers, MUST NOT support HTTP/2.0
> upgrade. This defines a concrete way to actually “enforce” the use of
> HTTP/2.0 w/TLS *or* HTTP/1.1 w/o TLS (depending on the client/network
> capabilities) instead of hand waving and putting the onus on clients to
> guess whether a connection is local or over the public web.
>
> 5. Define/reference a mechanism that allows a HTTP server to advertise
> that it supports access via https:// - there is at least one draft for
> this, but this allows a client/user agent to opportunistically use https://over http://.
> (For the general case this may not be needed - try connecting on port 443
> first, or in parallel with port 80…)
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As I seem to be saying over and over...
>
> We can wish for plaintext http2 over the internet on port 80 as much as we
> want, but it won't happen since it is not reliable, and the nature of that
> unreliability is not predictable.
>
> Few websites will be willing to turn on http2 if it means losing 10-20% of
> their user base. And that really is what we are talking about.
>
> -=R
> On Nov 14, 2013 8:40 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-11-14 18:49, Roberto Peon wrote:
>>
>>> There is a means of opting out, however, which exists and is widely
>>> deployed: http1
>>>
>>
>> And the WG has a mandate to develop a replacement for 1.1, called 2.0. If
>> we do not indent to develop that protocol anymore, we should re-charter.
>>
>>  There was near unanimity at the plenary that we should do something
>>> about pervasive monitoring, and while I don't believe that there were
>>> any actuonable , unambiguous dieectuves , the spirit of the room was
>>> quite clear. The IETF intends to attempt to do something about this.
>>>
>>
>> Yes. What we disagree on what that means for HTTP: URIs.
>>
>>  ...
>>>
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>
>
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 21:14:53 UTC

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