Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a connection
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 02 June 2016 00:11 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 0D55412D635 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 ww9VEd6LLiAx for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
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 B93D512D0CE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1b8GA0-00088x-A8 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:06:52 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:06:52 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1b8GA0-00088x-A8@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 <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1b8G9t-00088C-8S for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:06:45 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1b8G9p-0008Sm-21 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:06:43 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [120.149.194.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7C3322E2D4; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 20:06:16 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAKC-DJiHCVBneawU-zvnJAEbvbdUvLHJbTy5A+RNgijo3YBKnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 10:06:13 +1000
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <20CDDE51-2B0F-4A27-831D-CE630588B98C@mnot.net>
References: <CAKC-DJivd-h_H-oOznjTN8=so2zQOhbwuWFkD9hpgvLTqs-WnA@mail.gmail.com> <D5D8F908-27FB-4C81-8CAE-AD4B50939F05@mnot.net> <CAKC-DJhRX1Ac212_A-+h9ygDYidgxtK9RAHhWZP892uM9OEUgA@mail.gmail.com> <6F9226AA-7545-48FB-9409-10731E3BB020@mnot.net> <CABkgnnX_TGkVjhxiBR-hcLMx0dW40Q8ioak0B6wX6M2-M_S=3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJiHCVBneawU-zvnJAEbvbdUvLHJbTy5A+RNgijo3YBKnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.338, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 1b8G9p-0008Sm-21 07455f053ee0c6b1d6696a6d458dc4e0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a connection
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20CDDE51-2B0F-4A27-831D-CE630588B98C@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31686
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>
Does Martin's suggestion of a flag in the .well-known file work for you? Cheers, > On 2 Jun 2016, at 1:18 AM, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org> wrote: > > If it helps, this came up as an important corner-case during implementation / detailed-design of a server-side implementation. > > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > This is reasonable. A boolean `mixed-scheme` member that has to be > true seems appropriate. It's cheap enough to warrant doing. > > On 1 June 2016 at 11:10, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > What do other folks think? > > > > > >> On 1 Jun 2016, at 8:31 AM, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org> wrote: > >> > >> Filed for the opp-sec draft where this is most relevant: > >> > >> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/188 > >> > >> In particular, mixing of secure and insecure schemes should require server-side opt-in over a strongly authenticated channel. (eg, an attribute of /.well-known/http-opportunistic with properties similar to "commit" as for where it can be set). > > > > > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- constraining scheme (http vs https) on a connecti… Erik Nygren
- Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a conn… Mark Nottingham
- Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a conn… Erik Nygren
- Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a conn… Mark Nottingham
- Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a conn… Martin Thomson
- Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a conn… Erik Nygren
- Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a conn… Mark Nottingham
- Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a conn… Erik Nygren