- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:02:49 -0800
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABkgnnU9Tt+KE1WHJRBNGzZHN=2=g4sc7W=yphpSoKF3Ftxo0A@mail.gmail.com>
Or, if you consider what you are doing to be confidential (it usually isn't), don't include tunnel-protocol. Just like today. On Jan 21, 2015 8:56 PM, "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 22/01/2015 12:11 p.m., Martin Thomson wrote: > > On 21 January 2015 at 14:34, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> > > wrote: > >> So there's room for ambiguity around whether the next layer > >> (after CONNECT) is TLS or not. Or do we rely on the identifier > >> also indicating it is over TLS, in which case what if there are 2 > >> TLS layers? > > > > I get your point. My understanding, and what is written down, > > were indeed quite different. > > > > Does this help? > > > > > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/7e2e57a48c21be2b68f856b41095800620fc1a20 > > > > > http://httpwg.github.io/http-extensions/tunnel-protocol.html#rfc.section.1 > > (when Travis catches up) > > > > No, > > Consider that under the new scheme the label for HTTPS tunnels would > say "HTTP/1.1" to indicate that an HTTP/1.1 compliant proxy "does not > understand nor implement the tunneled protocol". > > The client intent is to tunnel TLS to keep the stuff inside secure. It > is not appropriate for the HTTP upper layers to expose those > intended-private details for all the world to read. > > IMO, just indicate TLS as the next layer after CONNECT and have that > layers ALPN (or not) indicate the nested next-layer. If the > intermediary is capable of peeking at the TLS ALPN value it can do so > itself. That also resolves security and logistical issues with keeping > the two ALPN tags in-sync. > > Amos > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUwIGlAAoJELJo5wb/XPRjbLUIAKEwlIVSVfrTnjnmKMzR+i2c > v/x+Qrxsw1Hc5HIHSPqSamcW86MWsKjf872Ay5kLbjzbye5XRVIxJX8ltteImfH4 > ft9gSEAnIIaeqXcHW7yAE4M+M8x67ShXz2ErvmUEHh38hoybsBYqNVKkGEVg4oEU > u6Siuljxjtj4NmhRP8hMTLYf6vT01LOwY9g7gZ3EGf5k0vk+6yTF9qBNxKji9RHF > qF6a+/hK15l9YVJejk4KI1w3Jp4xy0Vw0hwJQux+nnbn4D/dW5CE3myIy345xDts > ZJhZsKAcRg+JEoRGIMGze6Of5lBIlmtgxs8nhuSalwve+G/grguWb83DDeykWx4= > =UNbp > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2015 17:03:21 UTC