- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:31:00 +1100
- To: Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
What do people think about putting advisory text (not requirements) in Security Considerations? On 5 Feb 2014, at 12:34 pm, Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com> wrote: > I am not sure this is such a no brainer. We should not mandate implementation fallback behavior. If an implementer would successfully negotiate HTTP 1.1 if HTTP/2 is failing, the implementer should decide how or when to fallback. For example an implementer could decide that falling back to HTTP 1.1 and a different TLS profile is better than forcing a user to disable HTTP/2 to get to a given site. > > -Rob > > From: patrick.ducksong@gmail.com [mailto:patrick.ducksong@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Patrick McManus > Sent: Monday, February 3, 2014 7:43 AM > To: William Chan (陈智昌) > Cc: Martin Thomson; Brian Smith; Michael Sweet; HTTP Working Group > Subject: Re: How to handle HTTP/2 negotiation failure WRT TLS > > > > > On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:42 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > It's not clear to me what "this wasn't an issue" means. I'm guessing > that means that what we have in the spec is OK and it's not necessary > to discuss how to handle negotiation failure and just let > implementations figure it out. That's fine by me. > > I observe that as per > http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/netwerk/protocol/http/Http2Session.cpp, > Firefox appears to hard fail. And my inclination is to enforce the > same policy in Chromium. This will affect other implementations that > wish to interoperate with these browsers. > > > This seems like a no brainer to me. > > HTTP/2 is negotiated via ALPN. If the server selects HTTP/2 and also does something that is non-compliant with HTTP/2 that's a protocol error, not a negotiation error. > > afaict, failing to use TLS 1.2 is an example that isn't really any different than sending a data frame > 14bits long. HTTP/2 has rules - if you can't follow them then run a different protocol, right? > > > want me/Chromium to share half-baked thoughts on stuff, that's fine > and I will stop sharing them. Sorry for the noise. > > > phhhbt. > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 02:31:33 UTC