- From: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 10:46:59 -0700
- To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:54 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > Explicitly +agl since he's not subscribed to the mailing list. And I'm > deferring the Chromium/Google stance to him. We can live with or without the requirements in 9.2.2 but, if 9.2.2 is struck, we might still have its requirements in code. Everything less than TLS 1.2 with an AEAD mode is cryptographically broken and nothing new should be using anything less. A requirement on TLS 1.3 would be fine, except for the fact that TLS 1.3 doesn't exist yet and isn't likely to for some time. I think that Jason Greene's enumerated requirements are roughly correct, but I also think that TLS stacks already implement the needed functions. Since it would be a static configuration error to have HTTP/2 enabled with an SSL configuration that could lead to an invalid state, I hope that it's not too burdensome to check. Indeed, if the server is configured with weak cipher suites as a high priority, even without HTTP/2, it would be nice to warn about that. Cheers AGL
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 17:47:47 UTC