IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension?

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Sun, 28 July 2013 04:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 DC82B21F9993 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 21:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DQ+uheVn9b-J for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 21:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D79BC21F997B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 21:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V3It7-00021o-Lo for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 04:47:21 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 04:47:21 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V3It7-00021o-Lo@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <lear@cisco.com>) id 1V3Isw-000214-2b for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 04:47:10 +0000
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.141]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <lear@cisco.com>) id 1V3Isv-0005VW-7H for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 04:47:09 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1807; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1374986829; x=1376196429; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=kR2xn5+bs5gS6iBDRK5Xumae+vC8SvV1WIgBpW5a8zA=; b=GBDmSsOKb1IiLdObfWfzL6bRW5PxcbJMnnsH3ymBXFDONHUMCeRqb1hZ 5Y9EPUK5Z6oqEDhMB3UANwvjJZ7a2u7uAe6YhRSG8R+EKRJYtZb1+FMJE i3UolOAYtatHiDEV/LwXnYvtsboRhe793xdjaKQ9L8EIy58Z8hNFTELM5 Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhgFAB6h9FGQ/khR/2dsb2JhbABagwY1g1+FXbRmgRoWdIIbCQEBAQQjVQEQCQIDARQJFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGDQEHAQGIDIstm0OQbo99B4JjgSIDl1+RTIMWOg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,762,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="85202188"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Jul 2013 04:46:42 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-61-111-74.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-111-74.cisco.com [10.61.111.74]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6S4kehv020493 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 28 Jul 2013 04:46:40 GMT
Message-ID: <51F4A22F.2090804@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 06:46:39 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "\"William Chan (陈智昌)\"" <willchan@chromium.org>
CC: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <CACuKZqEBAqXs-cQF1U-g3npaXGR0LEoXZYxDv-3a+ftn-YG=_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYjS=JXYAYKe0ueqUFbdEUC3pM8xuj--b=F=WPgnSc9xYg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYjS=JXYAYKe0ueqUFbdEUC3pM8xuj--b=F=WPgnSc9xYg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020901050702040605050506"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=144.254.224.141; envelope-from=lear@cisco.com; helo=ams-iport-2.cisco.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.103, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.451, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V3Isv-0005VW-7H f495853c5b6a6d340b631fccee7b5567
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51F4A22F.2090804@cisco.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18935
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 7/23/13 7:34 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:
> FWIW, it seems reasonable to me to have the spec allow HTTPS 2.0
> without TLS extension. If you want to Upgrade, be my guest. I have no
> plans for my browser to support that, and I don't think Google servers
> will support it either, because we care strongly about the advantages
> of TLS-ALPN vs Upgrade.

Not only that, I don't think we can reasonably call this HTTP 2.0 if we
have no path to do it in the clear.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email