Operational Considerations | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-06.txt

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-06#section-5.1

Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>: (Wed Jun 22 19:36:14 2016)
> |   Including "tls-commit" creates a commitment to provide a secured
> |   alternative service for the advertised period.  Clients that receive
> |   this commitment can assume that a secured alternative service will be
> |   available for the origin object lifetime.  Clients might however
> |   choose to limit this time (see Section 5.3).
> 
> This may do create variation of
> 
> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/162
> 
> Client limits commintment liftime and therefore does not consider
> http-opportunistic for commintment but otherwise
> http-opportunistic is valid because "lifetime" member value is
> smaller than "current_age".
> 
> Now this does not look very dangerous, because if http-opportunistic
> is used only for commintment, then there is no "tls-ports".

Better:

   Clients might however choose to limit the origin object lifetime

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-06#section-5.3

|   To avoid situations where a commitment causes errors, clients MAY
|   limit the time over which a commitment is respected for a given
|   origin.

this comes:

    limit the origin object lifetime (and that way limit the time over 
    which a commitment is respected for a given origin).


Not very critical if using of "tls-ports" and "tls-commit"
on same origin object is discouraged.

/ Kari Hurtta

Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2016 09:00:12 UTC