Re: SRI, cache validation and ServiceWorkers

Replying here because my previous response didn't cc the TAG. Apologies for

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Daniel Appelquist <> wrote:

> Yoav Weiss <> wrote:
> > Anne van Kesteren <> wrote:
> > > And sites that use service workers ought to be using HTTPS anyway.
> >
> > Why?
> +1.
> I have a concern about this orthodoxy of always putting service worker
> apps under TLS.  Since the STRINT workshop, and also in light of the
> coming move to http/2, I¹ve been talking to a lot of web developers about
> moving to https.  I¹ve heard a lot of concerns with this, even from large,
> established web sites.  Developers¹ concerns generally fall into the
> following categories:
> 1. TLS itself is a pain to administer - the logistics of the certificates,
> installing them, making sure they remain valid, ensuring they cover all
> the needed domains, keeping up to date with best practice, etc...

In the post-Snowden world this is the new normal. We are tool-building
animals. We should build some better tools.

> 2. https sites require beefier hardware to serve

This is sanke-oil.

> 3. https sites are more difficult to load balance

SNI helps here:

> 4. serving over https makes it much more difficult to use third party
> content (scripts, images, videos, ad networks, whatever) in your webapp

Now you get to choose: work with reputable services that work over TLS or
don't persist your thing offline. I'm comfortable with giving developers
that choice. In a world where the TAG is concerned enough about pervasive
monitor (which we have spent many hours on at F2F meetings), this seems
like the least painful way to help encourage the transition. It's not
removing old functionality, it's providing a carrot (which also simplifies
deployment vs the design alternatives) for a *new* feature.

> A head of advertising for a major UK web site told me ³moving to https
> means we will lose money.²

Then I recommend they continue to serve over HTTP and not attempt to
persist offline.

> I¹m not saying these concerns aren¹t addressable in the long term, but I
> wonder, specifically looking at service worker, and considering that
> adopting service worker will already mean a big learning curve for web
> developers, whether enforcing TLS-only for this burgeoning technology is
> the right approach.

Yes, yes it is.

> In this light, I think Yoav¹s proposal deserves some additional
> consideration.
> Alex, Jake - would be good to hear your opinions on this.
> Dan
> Apologies for the wordy disclaimer below which is stripped in by my
> employer:
> This electronic message contains information from Telefonica UK or
> Telefonica Europe which may be privileged or confidential. The information
> is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above.
> If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying
> distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If
> you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by
> telephone or email. Switchboard: +44 (0)113 272 2000 Email:
> Telefonica UK Limited 260 Bath Road, Slough, Berkshire
> SL1 4DX Registered in England and Wales: 1743099. VAT number: GB 778 6037
> 85 Telefonica Europe plc 260 Bath Road, Slough, Berkshire SL1 4DX
> Registered in England and Wales: 05310128. VAT number: GB 778 6037 85
> Telefonica Digital Limited 260 Bath Road, Slough, Berkshire SL1 4DX
> Registered in England and Wales: 7884976. VAT number: GB 778 6037 85

Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 23:12:49 UTC