W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension?

From: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:29:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJ_4DfR=OgXx8e7j=Fmvt+VmoHUE2y8dT6E=6-ifuKCoyF8SPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Cc: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree TLS-ALPN is much better than TLS-Upgrade, but it'll take the
> rest of the world some time to get there.


​It's going to take the rest of the world some time to deploy HTTP/2, as
well.  Do you think that ALPN will be harder to deploy than HTTP/2?



> Allowing TLS-Upgrade
> meanwhile probably will not lessen the motivation to deploy ALPN,
> since it's in the best interest of all clients and servers to reduce a
> round trip.
>
> *If* the spec allows TLS-Upgrade, some servers will use it before they
> can do ALPN, and some clients will support it. Chrome will face the
> heat - a competitor browser can talk to a server in HTTPS/2.0 with
> Upgrade, yet Chrome can only talk to it in HTTPS/1.1.  Will Chrome
> stick to its principle and refuse to speak with the vulgar Upgrade? I
> bet a lunch that it will budge.
>
> Therefore if the spec allows TLS-Upgrade, it might as well mandate it.
>
> The other option is to absolutely forbid TLS-Upgrade and disown any
> implementation that does it, deliberately or accidentally (the latter
> being more likely).
>
> Zhong Yu
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
> <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> > FWIW, it seems reasonable to me to have the spec allow HTTPS 2.0 without
> TLS
> > extension. If you want to Upgrade, be my guest. I have no plans for my
> > browser to support that, and I don't think Google servers will support it
> > either, because we care strongly about the advantages of TLS-ALPN vs
> > Upgrade.
> >
> > IIRC, Twitter doesn't use NPN for the same reasons (lack of TLS extension
> > support on certain mobile clients). I believe they don't care about
> public
> > interop though, they just use dedicated VIPs with clients they control.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The draft mandates TLS extension ALPN for any https 2.0 connections,
> >> but why is that necessary? Why can't we also establish an https 2.0
> >> connection through the Upgrade mechanism, without ALPN? TLS extension
> >> may not be available/convenient on some platforms for some time;
> >> requiring it may discourage some potential implementers.
> >>
> >> Zhong Yu
> >>
> >
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 21:29:53 UTC

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