- From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 20:50:16 +0000
- To: "Ludin, Stephen" <sludin@akamai.com>
- CC: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I should add that this RFC I mentioned is problematic as there are IPR claims. Yoav On Jul 3, 2013, at 5:43 PM, "Ludin, Stephen" <sludin@akamai.com> wrote: > Zero intention of doing so. The "rewrite TLS" comment was there simply to > point out how far afield the idea was going. For the record, I am open to > most any ideas but my goal was not to suggest we tweak TLS but more to > point out a potential direction to spur more conversation. Will and > Roberto handily redirected the conversation to the experimental SPDY world. > > Thanks for the pointer to the RFC and the other suggestions! > > -stephen > > On 7/3/13 12:33 AM, "Yoav Nir" <ynir@checkpoint.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 3, 2013, at 3:02 AM, "Ludin, Stephen" <sludin@akamai.com> wrote: >> >>> Here is an idea to chew on. It has been discussed before, but if there >>> was a concept of returning multiple certs in the ServerHello which >>> indicate other common names the origin is authorized to serve I tight >>> provide a path forward to serving related content from those domains. >>> For >>> example, if the origin serves an html response on domain1.com which has >>> references to objects on otherdomain.com AND the origin has a valid >>> certificate for otherdomain.com it has a mechanism to 'prove' to the >>> client that it is authorized to push that content. >>> >>> At this point I am rewriting TLS as well as getting far from the >>> original >>> subject. Probably best to continue in a fresh thread if there is >>> interest. >> >> Hi Stephen. >> >> This is authorization at the HTTP level. I don't think this should go in >> TLS just because TLS has a mechanism for showing certificates. Also if >> you do want it to go in TLS, there's an RFC for that: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5878 . This allows for sending arbitrary >> authorization information. >> >> Alternatively, you could add this in HTTP as a header or as a new frame >> type. >> >> Yoav
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 20:50:53 UTC