Re: Response to HTTP2 expresions of interest

Dear Poul-Henning,

(disclaimer, I am one of the authors of http-mutual authentication I-D.)
IHMO(not authors. only me.),
HTTP Authentication (ex. Digest) has the state that I can call a session.

I think that this becomes the materials of this discussion.
"HTTP router" is very well put.
I want to know how the HTTP Authentication is handled on it.

Do you have any opinion about this?

HAYASHI, Tatsuya
Lepidum Co. Ltd.

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <> wrote:
> In message <>
> , Brian Pane writes:
>>>From the perspective of a load balancer, having just those three fields in
>>cleartext isn't sufficient. Sending a request to the proper upstream
>>destination may require information from Cookie, X-Forwarded-For, and more.
> (X-)F-F makes sense.
> Cookies: not so, whenever people use cookies, they are working around
> lack of session concept in HTTP.  HTTP/2.0 should fix that, so cookies
> go away.
>>I'm not too concerned about load balancers having to decrypt messages,
>>though: SSL termination has been a key selling point for load balancers for
>>many years.
> That's not the same as it being a good idea.
> Hosting providers are often unable to deploy load-balancers and
> DoS mitigation, exactly because it would require them to have all
> their hosted clients certificates.
> --
> 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.

Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 20:36:48 UTC