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

Re: something I don't get about the current plan...

From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 08:36:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CABaLYCugJW6-fxBkx4g53kAGhZRgVs1N_ywk=mzuJKRKNSBQNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'm not 100% sure I read your question right, but I think I get it.

The difference is between what breaks the server, what breaks in the
client, and what breaks in the middleware.  The middleware is the nasty
stuff that blocks us worst, the two parties that are trying to communicate
(e.g. the client and server) can't fix it.

So, the 10% failure rate by running non-HTTP/1.1 over port 80 or by running
on port 100 would be because you setup your server properly and the
*client* can't
connect to you because the middleware is broken.

But ~100% of clients can current connect over port 443, navigate the
middleware, negotiate HTTP/2, and work just fine.

Mike





On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>wrote:

>
> So the current plan is for server-authenticated https
> everywhere on the public web. If that works, great. But
> I've a serious doubt.
>
> 30% of sites use TLS that chains up to a browser-trusted
> root (says [1]). This plan has nothing whatsoever to say
> (so far) about how that will get to anything higher.
>
> Other aspects of HTTP/2.0 appear to require reaching a
> "99.9% ok" level before being acceptable, e.g. the port
> 80 vs not-80 discussion.
>
> That represents a clear inconsistency in the arguments for
> the current plan. If its not feasible to run on e.g. port
> 100 because of a 10% failure rate, then how is it feasible
> to assume that 60% of sites will do X (for any X, including
> "get a cert"), to get to the same 90% figure which is
> apparently unacceptable, when there's no plan for more-X
> and there's reason to think getting more web sites to do
> this will in fact be very hard at best?
>
> I just don't get that, and the fact that the same people are
> making both arguments seems troubling, what am I missing
> there?
>
> I would love to see a credible answer to this, because I'd
> love to see the set of sites doing TLS server-auth "properly"
> be much higher, but I have not seen anything whatsoever about
> how that might happen so far.
>
> And devices that are not traditional web sites represent a
> maybe even more difficult subset of this problem. Yet the
> answer for the only such example raised (printers, a real
> example) was "use http/1.1" which seems to me to be a bad
> answer, if HTTP/2.0 is really going to succeed HTTP/1.1.
>
> Ta,
> S.
>
> PS: In case its not clear, if there were a credible way to
> get that 30% to 90%+ and address devices, I'd be delighted.
>
> PPS: As I said before, my preference is for option A in
> Mark's set - use opportunistic encryption for http:// URIs
> in HTTP/2.0. So if this issue were a fatal flaw, then I'd
> be arguing we should go to option A and figure out how to
> handle mixed-content for that.
>
> [1] http://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/ssl_certificate/all
>
>
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 16:36:57 UTC

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