Port 80 deprecation
"Soni L." <fakedme+http@gmail.com> Wed, 02 June 2021 11:20 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 102BE3A3F5F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 04:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 nuU90ETbdj4i for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 04:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (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 725DC3A3F61 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 04:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1loOpl-0000yd-Gj for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 11:14:57 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 11:14:49 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1loOpl-0000yd-Gj@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <fakedme+http@gmail.com>) id 1loOny-0000m8-PS for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 11:13:02 +0000
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2a]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <fakedme+http@gmail.com>) id 1loOnw-000053-EW for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 11:12:58 +0000
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2a.google.com with SMTP id x2so403524qvo.8 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 04:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=XLGQmQOvgMIInpdA+JVbzioR7hfAkcDoO+K7Qzq0578=; b=XvIx7zETglIWp+ZEF3V1K5xLTsY5S3Nzy5ah4d5I1GSKjp6SN0vv59ePsmSJjmMmSV Zb7f4OCPzPR1XcLvj/AKmJoIJ0WjFtGBWe+96diMbbzTAn4/dbvubCzgY5dxw3vs3IL1 tEOQ8ir3ObNUBU9NhxY9SjT4FeRp64/m9QLqo+zQV1cPgtP9zopu/VLVyUWGduJc5J6Z eCp3EsRghHSJH+lAK1gezRvKyNcbRkPc+402+rIJHRecUxz0s8KJzkhgaC/33P9Spq+q S14BjV4H67Li5KS7fQR520/M7wAtMeNnK5/+dDJ/enwcT1s98MyIqV/l2iV+SdOJpUkU 0YBA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:to:from:subject:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=XLGQmQOvgMIInpdA+JVbzioR7hfAkcDoO+K7Qzq0578=; b=Az1T/45OWnDYe6x0XEkXxlFz4J3aRIzF67fHV2UDp2xqi7s3hmOSAuORpcpxVcCk5I 98yDK0DBtoOal3gBhrmSYCnVeiCzJo/ulNfewrizPl7yfjWJcvWY9lkSBs7B3Sdk2C6E 1zbf6Rw6umudOVxZGSZ8yOrfX2ClSanMBTkSW33G98M+migzZ76v2+R9W7kwLoelwUuy /o1d11tO/3EYSVSEp2z0jmOmwoNmrS76hZiOa+ZxjMNIwnAuDCchYqapNMu14gtu4Cp2 JIPhzR0lZiDOTIClLj8SNwhQZXNsNovYptnipZADwSZ0nPU3RscEdHGOzDuZnIzeXSGq nI4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533eQvDykAd64WPTgyLDwyj6W8XXJ05UMYe08bei8AKjTMlIutpM U0HXzluSZ0UG0RSNz3cZKLZd1OH/lk0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxb5KPar9BLnawcrgwLj3+2Red4G6SiJLAd3rkL+TAbn9de6oGW9lccM2n5sF8EDP5EKwzneg==
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:56e2:: with SMTP id cr2mr21505648qvb.19.1622632333372; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 04:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2804:431:d77c:99c8::536f:6e69? ([2804:431:d77c:99c8::536f:6e69]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id q12sm12027922qtl.13.2021.06.02.04.12.12 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Jun 2021 04:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: "Soni L." <fakedme@gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
From: "Soni L." <fakedme+http@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <41fb81f5-4978-f8da-d0de-7af26cd20e74@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 08:12:10 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2a; envelope-from=fakedme+http@gmail.com; helo=mail-qv1-xf2a.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (address=fakedme+http@gmail.com domain=gmail.com), signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1loOnw-000053-EW f1a52f42eb35109fcab3e0ab4b46416c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Port 80 deprecation
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/41fb81f5-4978-f8da-d0de-7af26cd20e74@gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38835
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
So uh, with TLS-SRP around, there's no real reason to keep supporting port 80, as every use-case supported by port 80 can be handled with TLS-SRP instead. In particular, LAN/embedded can be handled with TLS-SRP, with great benefits: - It's TLS, which, for browsers, makes it a secure context. - Deprecating port 80 would free it up for other uses. There are only 65535 port numbers, but way more than 65535 applications that use them. Not only that, but a single application may even use multiple ports! - Actually encourages IoT devices to provide security by default. Thoughts?
- Port 80 deprecation Soni L.
- Re: Port 80 deprecation Adrien de Croy
- Re: Port 80 deprecation Paul Vixie
- Re: Port 80 deprecation Soni L.
- Re: Port 80 deprecation Willy Tarreau
- Re: Port 80 deprecation Paul Vixie
- Re: Port 80 deprecation Eric J Bowman
- Re: Port 80 deprecation Toerless Eckert
- Re: Port 80 deprecation Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Port 80 deprecation Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: Port 80 deprecation Paul Vixie
- Re: Port 80 deprecation Adrien de Croy
- Re: Port 80 deprecation Martin J. Dürst
- Re: Port 80 deprecation Willy Tarreau
- Re: Port 80 deprecation Soni L.
- Re: Port 80 deprecation Rafal Pietrak
- Re: Port 80 deprecation Paul Vixie
- Re: Port 80 deprecation Rafal Pietrak
- Re: Port 80 deprecation squid3