[hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8164 on Opportunistic Security for HTTP/2]
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Tue, 16 May 2017 14:14 UTC
Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D80129BBD for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 May 2017 07:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sJDlB2tDJuKb for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 May 2017 07:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA0BC12708C for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Tue, 16 May 2017 07:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 5255928014D for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Tue, 16 May 2017 16:10:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id 4AE7D2805CB; Tue, 16 May 2017 16:10:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (relay01.prive.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:15::11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C3D28014D for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Tue, 16 May 2017 16:10:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.users.prive.nic.fr [10.10.86.133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D4B36023DF3 for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Tue, 16 May 2017 16:10:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3558840B37; Tue, 16 May 2017 16:10:03 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 16:10:03 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: hrpc@irtf.org
Message-ID: <20170516141003.ubdlqsjpnpbx6h7z@nic.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="dbdlvn4oydvq4src"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.0
X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-2-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.2
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2017.5.16.135716
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hrpc/VG8qtU5mZ8sW7P-BkcO-bD6AgOY>
Subject: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8164 on Opportunistic Security for HTTP/2]
X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "niels@article19.org" <hrpc.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hrpc/>
List-Post: <mailto:hrpc@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 14:14:57 -0000
This was a very hot discussion at the IETF 2-3 years ago during the development of HTTP/2: should we have mandatory encryption, opportunistic (best effort) encryption or what? At this time, opportunistic encryption was postponed and the RFC is now published.
--- Begin Message ---
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 8164
Title: Opportunistic Security for HTTP/2
Author: M. Nottingham,
M. Thomson
Status: Experimental
Stream: IETF
Date: May 2017
Mailbox: mnot@mnot.net,
martin.thomson@gmail.com
Pages: 10
Characters: 19620
Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None
I-D Tag: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-11.txt
URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8164
DOI: 10.17487/RFC8164
This document describes how "http" URIs can be accessed using
Transport Layer Security (TLS) and HTTP/2 to mitigate pervasive
monitoring attacks. This mechanism not a replacement for "https"
URIs; it is vulnerable to active attacks.
This document is a product of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis Working Group of the IETF.
EXPERIMENTAL: This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the
Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any
kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist
For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk
Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.
The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC
--- End Message ---
- [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8164 on Op… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8164 o… Niels ten Oever
- Re: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8164 o… Stephane Bortzmeyer