W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: How to handle HTTP/2 negotiation failure WRT TLS

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 00:45:13 +1300
Message-ID: <52F375C9.3080602@treenet.co.nz>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 5/02/2014 3:31 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
> What do people think about putting advisory text (not requirements) in Security Considerations?
> 

I think prohibition of anything that makes it actually worse than
HTTP/1.1 over TLS is reasonable.

Otherwise just considerations sounds good. With a particular callout on
any possible security downgrades to HTTP/1.1 level of security.

Amos

> 
> 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 Thursday, 6 February 2014 11:45:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:24 UTC