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

Re: Mandatory encryption *is* theater

From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 13:05:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CABaLYCsT4_e01eh7ghcXYDn8mAvgpxpKO=7PiPTh808C66ECow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: William Chan <willchan@google.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

>  Will,
>
>
> On 8/25/13 5:29 PM, William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ) wrote:
>
>
> Another key distinction is encryption does not require authentication, so
> a proper cert is not mandatory. I'm surprised you mention requiring a
> proper cert given that you clearly understand a proper cert isn't
> necessary, given your reply to Yoav below. I think it's worthwhile to
> discuss the asserted benefit, but any statement about the current proposal
> requiring proper certificates sounds factually incorrect as far as I can
> tell. Did I miss something here?
>
>
> Possibly you did or possibly I did.  I have two specific issues with
> anonymous encryption:
>
> 1.  The threat it is addressing may be better dealt with at other layers;
> and
> 2.  It is often sold as more than it is.
>
> As I wrote, I do like the idea of DANE + DNSSEC and then expanding on
> that.  Got code for that?  If it's real privacy (not just encryption) then
> I'd probably be convinced (there is a matter of responsibility, but I
> think  DANE + DNSSEC could get us there, as can certs from credible CAs).
>
> And just for the record:
>
>
> Yes, the proposal is that it is mandatory for the server to implement and
> offer encryption.
>
>
> That is in fact my objection, particularly the "offer" part.  You seem to
> be assuming (forgive me if you are not) that many implementations small and
> large AND many deployments small and large will do a whole lot of work for
> that offer where past experience shows that they won't, but rather that it
> will in fact hinder implementation and deployment of the rest of HTTP2.
> There is an obvious question about the goals for HTTP2...
>

I want to challenge your 'past experience' argument since you've said it 2
or 3 times now...

IPv6 suffered from slow deployment for reasons unrelated to security.   a)
It offered little value.  b) The main value it did offer was more easily
implemented through NAT c) it required OS-level upgrades to install.

HTTP/2 has none of these problems, while also having real monetary benefit.
 This is exactly the reason why SPDY has become the fastest deployed
protocol on the internet ever - from zero to a billion+ users in about a
year.  With HTTP/2 have the headroom to make TLS a requirement without
breaking deployment.

Finally, implementations don't have to do "a whole lot of work".
 Implementing and deploying TLS is trivial these days.

Mike




>
>
> Eliot
>
Received on Sunday, 25 August 2013 20:05:34 UTC

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