- From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:40:05 -0800
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABaLYCv3uqidiVMffm_0VP2XGEwO86+09WmXpPdCd6R=iFqwxw@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > On Nov 17, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > In message <CACuKZqHKjpvgu= > TOGsG6FVKtVnJnom1pn8FnuWit9XraW-JM-w@mail.gmail.com> > > , Zhong Yu writes: > > > >> If a URL is http://something, it better means that the document can be > >> retrieved by HTTP/1 on clear TCP. If that assumption is broken, a lot > >> of software will be broken. > > > > No, it means "fetch this with HTTP", it doesn't say "HTTP/1" anywhere > > and if the user-agent determines that it can be fetched better with > > HTTP/2 on port 100, then that's just fine. > > The URI scheme defines a name resolution mapping. "http", in particular, > defines a mapping to a hypothetical HTTP server listening to the default > (or given) TCP port. That server is authoritative for the remaining URI > bits. > > The scheme does not mean "fetch"; GET does, which is a method constructed > based on context found outside the URI. > > The scheme does not mean "use HTTP"; the tools a user chooses to make > use of the Internet determine what protocols to use, corresponding to > which schemes, and may or may not intend to do so through network access > to an authoritative server. "http" URIs can and do "work" when a user > agent has no network access. > > Security is a systemic issue, not a protocol issue. There is nothing > secure about TLS or encryption. There are merely some use cases in > which the data crossing the wire can be made confidential to a given > set of key holders, preferably controlled by the entity to which the > user intends to communicate in confidence. That level of confidentiality > is sufficient for many commerce use cases. It does not provide privacy. > > Anyone who thinks adding TLS to plain HTTP will improve security, > let alone privacy, needs to learn how TLS gets its security. > Encryption is not magic pixie dust. > So your official statement is that TLS does not improve the security or privacy of HTTP? Mike > > For HTTP, the scheme identifies an authority. A user trusts their > user agent to retrieve somewhat authoritative responses. If a user > agent can obtain reasonably authoritative responses via other > means, then it can use those other means instead of the default > means defined by the scheme, regardless of the scheme. > > ....Roy >
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 23:40:33 UTC