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

Re: Proposal for doing unauthenticated encryption inside of HTTP/2

From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 20:18:42 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPik8yYmpp-R0f-5dYi8ceJjum1STX69CA=QgzCgeu-Y6OnSWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 8:03 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1. So far this appears only to sketch out a rough key derivation
> strategy... it doesn't really say, however, *what* parts of the
> message are being encrypted. DATA frame payloads only? HEADERS frame
> payloads? What about PUSH_PROMISE? Extension frames? These will all
> need to be addressed at some point.
>

Yes.


> 2. Who exactly is S1?


S1 is not a "who", it is a message. C1 is the first message from the client
to the server, S1 is the first message from the server to the client.


> What is the relationship between S1 and Origin?
> How does C1 know who it is communicating with?


C1 doesn't: that's the whole point of "unauthenticated". If I can make that
any more clear in the document, please let me know how.


> Is the negotiation
> hop-by-hop or end-to-end?


It is for a single HTTP/2 connection between a client and a server.


> Can there be multiple keys derived and used
> within a single HTTP/2 connection?
>

The current draft assumes a single set of keys. There is no need for more
if the purpose is to thwart surveillance. Having multiple keys possible
seems like a feature without a problem behind it.

--Paul Hoffman
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 04:19:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:20 UTC