IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Upgrade status for impl draft 1

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Wed, 27 February 2013 21:46 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 9AB3E21F867E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:46:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.594
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rV4pinvaMc2x for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:46:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2AE821F869F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:46:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UAooh-00085k-Jn for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:45:35 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:45:35 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UAooh-00085k-Jn@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 1UAooW-00084w-4a for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:45:24 +0000
Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com ([144.254.224.147]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <lear@cisco.com>) id 1UAooU-0008C1-QR for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:45:24 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=445; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1362001522; x=1363211122; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=d5hCqBkKjWMIiOBj7wNHJ7e/fEsVk87SBkPbgAqex/M=; b=bLOKSx1TCdXQ1IsPXkG/wndTSR4Jl0doTX/bkBpdYfPRoff9/IDscM36 DaWkApXy/83bPuAwUVuqKQqgOCqmDa7DwBfPVNLIURIbUVrlZPBeZ4nTh q6XUGrRMXI2g8HaJR8lag7YjzrPtbzLDYQLoJlzCymNu0RqYH7l73qZVI o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAAl9LlGQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABFhk+7WH0Wc4IgAQEEI1UBEAsaAgUWCwICCQMCAQIBRQYNAQcBAYgPr0KSboEjjXEHgi2BEwOWQZBqgwk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,750,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="12116255"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2013 21:44:56 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-61-98-134.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-98-134.cisco.com [10.61.98.134]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1RLitrF006504 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:44:56 GMT
Message-ID: <512E7E57.8040102@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:44:55 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "\"William Chan (陈智昌)\"" <willchan@chromium.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <B0FC9D1E-08EF-4275-9851-C8F33F24FF00@mnot.net> <CAA4WUYgGD2XWRH0xXYJOR7zY16hf2w+d4XTVk8_rx+DV5iG3Ug@mail.gmail.com> <512DA753.4040402@cisco.com> <CA+9kkMDYyWcOpHH+ngG4pQNhGu50ZafeBhBofTZiobj4nvCz3A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMDYyWcOpHH+ngG4pQNhGu50ZafeBhBofTZiobj4nvCz3A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=144.254.224.147; envelope-from=lear@cisco.com; helo=ams-iport-4.cisco.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.195, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.703, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UAooU-0008C1-QR 20b6737df3770f4239e15eb1da340c94
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Upgrade status for impl draft 1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/512E7E57.8040102@cisco.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16904
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>

Ted, the problem is that then we are essentially requiring TLS for
implementation of HTTP 2.0.  We've said we're not going to do that.  But
also, the problem you describe is within control of both clients (albeit
with a linkage to DNSSEC) and servers by not linking two secure and
insecure services.  Ultimately what is proposed represents no change
because the server itself has to provide whatever capability we're
discussing.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email