- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:02:39 +0000
- To: M Stefan <mstefanro@gmail.com>
- cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
In message <51E330F5.6050100@gmail.com>, M Stefan writes: >Nowadays, the only serious way of providing secure communications over >HTTP is using HTTPS. Many web hosts are reluctant to using it because >of the extra computational burden [...] I agree with you (if I understood your message right) that the current HTTP/1.1 authentication/password stuff is fundamentally useless and should not be carried into HTTP/2.0. I think HTTP/2.0 should make partial protection possible, (See my previous message :-) exactly so that the cost can be kept down. But I think that it would be a big mistake to involved HTTP/2.0 in the actual protection, to any extent further than to mark what needs protection and what does not. Authentication should happen either in the encrypting transport which moves HTTP/2.0 across (as in certificates and assymetric crypto) or in the application transported inside HTTP/2.0 (as in most web-site login dialogs), but HTTP/2.0 itself should not get involved: It is the wrong layer. -- 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, 15 July 2013 00:03:01 UTC