IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Port 80 deprecation

Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> Thu, 03 June 2021 00:28 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 D81343A2195 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 17:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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
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 LzYvbyM0c3o3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 17:28:33 -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 734CF3A2194 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 17:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1lobAF-00071s-TN for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 00:24:58 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 00:24:47 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1lobAF-00071s-TN@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1lob9D-0006qV-TH for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 00:23:49 +0000
Received: from smtp.qbik.com ([122.56.26.1]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1lob8u-0006ZW-0N for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 00:23:32 +0000
Received: From [192.168.1.162] (unverified [192.168.1.162]) by SMTP Server [192.168.1.3] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v9.4.2 (Build 6000)) with SMTP id <0002527741@smtp.qbik.com>; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 12:23:05 +1200
From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 00:23:08 +0000
Message-Id: <em31279999-b222-49d5-8243-8ec47f667f6e@bombadil>
In-Reply-To: <41fb81f5-4978-f8da-d0de-7af26cd20e74@gmail.com>
References: <41fb81f5-4978-f8da-d0de-7af26cd20e74@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/8.2.1237.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: none client-ip=122.56.26.1; envelope-from=adrien@qbik.com; helo=smtp.qbik.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1lob8u-0006ZW-0N 659fbd7cc184c19899bbc2ecfd152046
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Port 80 deprecation
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/em31279999-b222-49d5-8243-8ec47f667f6e@bombadil>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38837
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>

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Port 80 is still heavily used.

Suggest revisiting this idea in maybe 50 years.

Adrien

------ Original Message ------
From: "Soni L." <fakedme+http@gmail.com>
To: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 2/06/2021 11:12:10 pm
Subject: Port 80 deprecation

>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?
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email