- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 11:44:22 +1000
- To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
- Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, DNS Privacy Working Group <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
On 4 May 2017 at 11:26, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> wrote: > hm, it sounds like that won't work for h2, given Patrick's point that h2 > isn't client-speaks-first. Right? If we tried to do something like > "h2|dns", it seems like it would introduce a potential latency hit for > any h2-specific client that proposed it, because the server couldn't > send its first frame unsolicited. I know you can't speak for Mozilla, > but would you imagine firefox opting into this for normal http/2 > connections? Patrick owns that decision and could tell you. The cost would be on the DNS-enabled client, who would have to detect and ignore any h2 preface from a server for that protocol. > For http/1.x, the draft is arguing that using an ALPN label is > unnecessary -- so if that's right, what would we gain from a new ALPN > label over using the existing HTTP/1.1 mechanism (i.e., either no ALPN > or the ALPN token "http/1.1")? Upthread we see several reasons why that argument might not be valid. > It looks to me like the new ALPN label introduces costs: > > * implementations on both server and client need to specify it > > * client implementations need to verify that it was chosen, and fail if > not I would have thought that these are benefits. > * network monitors can see that it was offered and discriminate against > the offerer at least (TLS 1.3), and in some cases the established > connections (TLS 1.2 and earlier). A lot depends on the population size. If this were enabled in a sizeable chunk of the browser market, then the TLS 1.3 option goes away. Note that you only create the full exposure if you decide to implement this at a server without also implementing TLS 1.3. > What are the benefits of introducing a new ALPN label for demuxing > HTTP/1.1 from DNS? Certainty, primarily. A clear signal that both peers agree to use the same protocol. It might also reduce ossification effects, but I haven't gamed that out.
Received on Thursday, 4 May 2017 01:44:59 UTC