Re: something I don't get about the current plan...

On 11/17/2013 04:36 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:
> I'm not 100% sure I read your question right, but I think I get it.
> 
> The difference is between what breaks the server, what breaks in the
> client, and what breaks in the middleware.  The middleware is the nasty
> stuff that blocks us worst, the two parties that are trying to communicate
> (e.g. the client and server) can't fix it.
> 
> So, the 10% failure rate by running non-HTTP/1.1 over port 80 or by running
> on port 100 would be because you setup your server properly and the
> *client* can't
> connect to you because the middleware is broken.
> 
> But ~100% of clients can current connect over port 443, navigate the
> middleware, negotiate HTTP/2, and work just fine.

But that last isn't true is it if only 30% of sites have certs
that chain up to a browser-trusted root, as implied by the
reference site. Hence my question.

S.

> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Stephen Farrell
> <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>wrote:
> 
>>
>> So the current plan is for server-authenticated https
>> everywhere on the public web. If that works, great. But
>> I've a serious doubt.
>>
>> 30% of sites use TLS that chains up to a browser-trusted
>> root (says [1]). This plan has nothing whatsoever to say
>> (so far) about how that will get to anything higher.
>>
>> Other aspects of HTTP/2.0 appear to require reaching a
>> "99.9% ok" level before being acceptable, e.g. the port
>> 80 vs not-80 discussion.
>>
>> That represents a clear inconsistency in the arguments for
>> the current plan. If its not feasible to run on e.g. port
>> 100 because of a 10% failure rate, then how is it feasible
>> to assume that 60% of sites will do X (for any X, including
>> "get a cert"), to get to the same 90% figure which is
>> apparently unacceptable, when there's no plan for more-X
>> and there's reason to think getting more web sites to do
>> this will in fact be very hard at best?
>>
>> I just don't get that, and the fact that the same people are
>> making both arguments seems troubling, what am I missing
>> there?
>>
>> I would love to see a credible answer to this, because I'd
>> love to see the set of sites doing TLS server-auth "properly"
>> be much higher, but I have not seen anything whatsoever about
>> how that might happen so far.
>>
>> And devices that are not traditional web sites represent a
>> maybe even more difficult subset of this problem. Yet the
>> answer for the only such example raised (printers, a real
>> example) was "use http/1.1" which seems to me to be a bad
>> answer, if HTTP/2.0 is really going to succeed HTTP/1.1.
>>
>> Ta,
>> S.
>>
>> PS: In case its not clear, if there were a credible way to
>> get that 30% to 90%+ and address devices, I'd be delighted.
>>
>> PPS: As I said before, my preference is for option A in
>> Mark's set - use opportunistic encryption for http:// URIs
>> in HTTP/2.0. So if this issue were a fatal flaw, then I'd
>> be arguing we should go to option A and figure out how to
>> handle mixed-content for that.
>>
>> [1] http://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/ssl_certificate/all
>>
>>
>

Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 16:40:33 UTC