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

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

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:19:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbc7eJJH5EGBP3MmEJ6CoOtdmy6Z2HDb_6chm-vAY-_WpA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'm good with this if, and only if, we also take the step of defining
a separate default port for plaintext http/2 for all other cases.

- James

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> Also, I'm wondering what people (both sides) would think if we allowed http/2 for http:// URLs (with or without opp encryption) for .local and RFC1918 addresses, to ease the IoT / printer cases.
> Cheers,
> On 18/11/2013, at 3:09 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
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 04:20:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:20 UTC