Re: Partial Encryption

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Tue, 11 April 2017 04:13 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 A36081293FB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 XPzhZWUPXa1Z for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:13:00 -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 A750A127866 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cxn7m-00082C-Sa for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 04:09:50 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 04:09:50 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cxn7m-00082C-Sa@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1cxn7h-000802-3Z for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 04:09:45 +0000
Received: from [121.99.228.82] (helo=treenet.co.nz) by mimas.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1cxn7a-0002oW-O3 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 04:09:39 +0000
Received: from [192.168.20.251] (unknown [121.98.40.15]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F4DCE6D7F for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:09:02 +1200 (NZST)
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <CAG47hGYbqbdTCsdjXwHARFvxysKdrzuNNR5XfVn6Zg7g8pisZA@mail.gmail.com> <CBB2CB4B-7D68-47FE-887B-422DEB99DB52@mnot.net> <CAG47hGajGpkrnhTQKFpMSqGNG=z98pV+EqJp4nyV8pzDwfMz9Q@mail.gmail.com> <F5D76141-5A2B-4438-AA39-9F8011A4CF82@mnot.net> <CAFmBjviVLxL0dr_BjtzLVRYjxk2zua7PiqpXkuZjaQbhXPTtjw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Message-ID: <b3fa3acf-9548-b914-3ded-bafd699a63a7@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:08:47 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFmBjviVLxL0dr_BjtzLVRYjxk2zua7PiqpXkuZjaQbhXPTtjw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=121.99.228.82; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.841, BAYES_05=-0.5, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cxn7a-0002oW-O3 51ab6fd410236ff84594a8d9defed98e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Partial Encryption
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/b3fa3acf-9548-b914-3ded-bafd699a63a7@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33808
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 11/04/2017 1:31 p.m., John Gates wrote:
> I totally get it on the compliance and checking the box statement.  There
> are some tough roads ahead on actually making something like this happen
> and be routable.  I think that may be what's really holding this type of
> encryption back.
> 

Routability should not be an issue. It is just another content-encoding
as far as the middleware is concerned. If all the browsers add support
it should have less impact than SDCH.

There will be issues with software that screws around with content to
force-gzip everything. Those are thankfully not all that common, and the
government services in question should be a good reason to quash that
type of bad behaviour.

Amos