IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-http2-client-certs-01.txt

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Thu, 28 January 2016 22:06 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63DD11A92B3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:06:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 spIRlZ50TSZD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:06:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50B561A9245 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:06:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aOueX-0007oK-Vn for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 22:02:58 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 22:02:57 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aOueX-0007oK-Vn@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1aOueU-0007nU-AZ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 22:02:54 +0000
Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com ([209.85.213.176]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1aOueR-0004yu-UI for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 22:02:53 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f176.google.com with SMTP id ik10so23736754igb.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:02:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Tjbk1BR6pzCbGJk4gTE35tr/2tOYry9zi1WmzjxG398=; b=GG+me4CpvRT7h9W1F25zMk9LJkLcN8O4t3rXqcbZG7zNumvcFohMdZmYPYOI9/LdPt S1choDr8vA71ZbiTnqh0DSUi5Dcg3Dsv5yG9qP6ipd1UkidRxXPJzkhXj+6NggafAoGW xRAdq5eb1jRu5iupV4vHdOrs2NfaJcETKN7EAw1OvSEAt8vTBF6a1giDn4pFQM9s0d6+ Fhtdo0ffqwH4wxbEksPn5dZc7vMYYKxrhCJ6MrvxkxgV+qVPWRONiMGRF8+iaN4sprfp wVIUuo/HsP/Dh7xgNZEWNkPCrlujpGHCuNfP3se99NmUAFpZZ39N/u9hDm9iIrpW3uGQ VZNQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Tjbk1BR6pzCbGJk4gTE35tr/2tOYry9zi1WmzjxG398=; b=IXlCPOUoRA77N8oFfWoZUtfZCicPl2Tkti2e5MqY893K+Ma2lkhIJ5fIMg52ERfmNb AVnCwNoaAYkqFcrTXoPgDv4h7OEuSbDoeqpPVRQ5OjiGiQX7Mcw0T2wuFgzSnm84QPri FiZeeED2boy2JNnfF0FQF11ibb4yzIEoBbEHOzXiw2M25kZB8l/f/eRtz+iKn6GGdoMp UecQqiSwEinz8Ir2RbOPsihYAVdOZ6gTlVCU2YGMn7BTpixGjKSwtHZ7XW7cJjRUt+GZ BjZRFfdGXohle/Ox3EddwlZ9kHI+fhhDuBeYdqa3Sp8tOeAhxgxutTukwoLFhXlqa7Um h1rw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQEu7hyLY8bQfZmdKYda+Ik8CTje/+Ge4eAt/wy4LLKiooZzbnGsn2TKxTZ8qBAR6mG0lgYDkJihjVNww==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.20.73 with SMTP id l9mr6195862ige.58.1454018545600; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:02:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.149.130 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:02:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR03MB1374B07839A782A58726E82587DA0@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20160122222315.28781.93913.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CY1PR03MB1374890E32B6F6CA2AB78D8D87D80@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CANatvzwa_g3zaA+LAHy02=5J+F905hnNMBjCWLkFs8vYj+owwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CY1PR03MB1374CE744C071D891B97002A87D90@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CANatvzxjV8iisab3oL6zGi8GS8ADjNr=TGQBO+62dZg7i+XLOw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnU0PikdkbmwPw1x4S0JLs=oAdCB97b8u3qn9AiTnU9q4w@mail.gmail.com> <CY1PR03MB1374B07839A782A58726E82587DA0@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:02:25 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXYkSjzWDWn-D=4PV6b+z_UmucXNgq2VLGbc9+s8z8GcQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.213.176; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f176.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.833, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1aOueR-0004yu-UI 87f7f67ea97d38547de2c7a72d9da1fe
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-http2-client-certs-01.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnXYkSjzWDWn-D=4PV6b+z_UmucXNgq2VLGbc9+s8z8GcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31024
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: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 29 January 2016 at 04:56, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Do we have data on how commonly certificates are greater than 16KB in size?

I suppose that someone could check the CT log, but that is server
certs only, so it might be a poor data source for client certs.

I'm inclined to take the bloody minded approach here and wait until
someone complains.  16k is a pretty big cert.

And before someone brings up post-quantum crypto and 8M McEliece keys,
I think that public key sizes need to be much smaller than 16k if
that's going to be deployed.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email