W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Response to HTTP2 expresions of interest

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:42:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwgQRnXsjvFkg42Tm3qZmY=M34-n1WM1W9V9oF-=udnBQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
OK HTTP is not going to be acceptably secure for the types of
application TLS is typically used today.

But that is still only 1% or so of traffic. that leaves quite a gap.

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> In message <CAMm+Lwgr1cnM3-iz_quKhN9N_dS1d6qdv26kSvKZ+T_Hr9L+hw@mail.gmail.com>
> , Phillip Hallam-Baker writes:
>>5a) The TLS-HTTP gap
>>Now as far as HTTP is concerned, headers have security implications
>>and so HTTP is not going to be acceptably secure without either
>>transport layer or packet layer security.
> I disagree.
> What HTTP lacks is a clear distinction between "envelope" and "body"
> the way SMTP and NNTP have it.
> HTTP/2.0 would enable a lot more sites to run with cryptographic
> security, if there were an unprotected envelope for load-balancers
> to act on.
> I also think it should be possible to mix protected and unprotected
> requests on the same TCP session.
> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 17:42:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:02 UTC