- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 08:52:55 -0800
- To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
- Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Ilya Grigorik <ilya@igvita.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABP7RbeK=XC_+w8YciJ-0gR6WN5+psaE2PabmD4wfz+wDimM0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Well.. jumping into in a bit.. there is this draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-00 In it, I define an experimental in-session key negotiation mechanism built around SPDY's framing mechanism. The way it's defined, it would allow for both hop-by-hop and end-to-end encryption scenarios and provides a much more flexible model than what exists today with TLS... for one, security can be negotiated and renegotiated on the fly without tearing down and reestablishing the tcp connection. Within a single SPDY session you could actually have multiple layers of encryption going on, with the SYN_STREAM and the DATA frames each being encrypted using distinct keys negotiated with different entities involved in the connection. I will stress that, for now, this is entirely theoretical and experimental, but something like this would address the use case. - James On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>wrote: > Ok I think this has wandered far enough for me. Send me a link to your > draft when it's ready. > S > > On 11 Jan 2013, at 20:44, "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > > > -------- > > In message <50F0774A.6010706@cs.tcd.ie>, Stephen Farrell writes: > > > >>> There is nothing "state of the art" about mixing p2p and e2e > >>> trust and security, PTT's and banks have been doing it for > >>> centuries. > >> > >> Feel free to post details. I at least don't know what > >> you mean. > > > > I'm sure you do, you just don't know that you know it. > > > > If you are working in a big organization, I'm sure you don't > > go to the post-office yourself, you have an intern mail-service > > that will do so for you, and thanks to the separation of > > envelope from message, they can do so, without opening your > > letter. > > > >> (I'm also not aware of how 16th century PTT's operated > >> to be honest. RFC 1149 perhaps?:-) > > > > Amongst other technologies. > > > > I'm sure the chinese and the romans would beg to differ, but > > read for instance: > > > > > http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/heritage/the-oldest-post-office-in-the-world-1-465812 > > > >>> The problem the HTTPbis effort has, is that it's trying to > >>> improve on one of the worlds most popular and used protocols[1]. > >>> > >>> Addressing some of its actual user-perceived shortcomings would > >>> be a very smart move from a marketing point of view. > >> > >> Yes, but this isn't a marketing exercise. > > > > Ask the IPv6 people if they still think that was a smart > > position to take. > > > > Catering to your users needs is a good way to win adoption. > > > > -- > > 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 Monday, 14 January 2013 16:53:47 UTC