IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a connection

Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org> Wed, 01 June 2016 15:23 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 558B212D5C0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 08:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.346
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.346 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 TpkNceZc9Rk5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 08:23:43 -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 C1C6212D52F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 08:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1b87vX-0004Mu-Kt for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 15:19:23 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 15:19:23 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1b87vX-0004Mu-Kt@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <nygren@gmail.com>) id 1b87vQ-0004KX-Kx for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 15:19:16 +0000
Received: from mail-io0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <nygren@gmail.com>) id 1b87vO-0005IP-Ay for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 15:19:16 +0000
Received: by mail-io0-f173.google.com with SMTP id t40so24915069ioi.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 08:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=o6tzm3lhHglKHD1IcwZrAJX0FTrfhbFyEPngKehfItc=; b=FFcpi58MdUHmts1lu3TJVYLFt19c1Nx4H7dnjYnWiIE70eBu1gXlqQ7f5oRiwC3dTN AKrYdn1j/flt8PoZVStkoLTIGhWl/Ep7oZ1DB+Zw8QHl9B1lE3KXYAuq92e8KYwOzwFn PP8yEF2cwfKzc12V6OXTIXFPiwAvsocWzH3h5Q6xNDNcNtsDh7gazwRDSlLtD+l29BT+ ngKizs2AZ4sVpCGlvb7ROZyfjZzlvaye7G/RY83zrEDY0m3k3T49A80HqqmLgIZVqWZR dnF1RK1Mm/xuzmX2poD6vaS+Sg1O8TbwbVJ6dnWs92NhnsS7BzhpqEw1l8sf1uugAWwd y6sQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=o6tzm3lhHglKHD1IcwZrAJX0FTrfhbFyEPngKehfItc=; b=OFlULLs/WYujY3C9HWVvcV+y1YLgaEl+50m8WhbC+hrqb31L7xg0ehgL1STgIZH2gu yzLZBLc81s8k7QaT6Sr9PQBjKQkKJIt4RUImvF4QZ5GTqf8JPmB3azBa3NjxerCcyefI i9cdHOO8Fi4Ol0PKAtbVt1uhGyBvAzq5nhvEizyZN7Zcapi+Id6LoqVe3Zwj73ZwM0FM 11578fCfew7OjE8JjWahtsVrESXqNpaT40J+Omb/AOVSit84xvGbWLyw+BQAwGRpeGSd aLUhY6PgFD9gmpaVAsmfID9nwFza/8mFowfIbG1xII2Z5bMKL0fxNUfKonJ54mcvLoV6 K+rQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tK1SU8KWcNtIrRRqX6QnuoF5GckeHkq9Z9pJQGPJDJCticdmxpKYd0a2nOqU9xy+D4dnhX6ekRlwUCaig==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.143.68 with SMTP id r65mr6409778iod.54.1464794328041; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 08:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: nygren@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.146.134 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 08:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnX_TGkVjhxiBR-hcLMx0dW40Q8ioak0B6wX6M2-M_S=3A@mail.gmail.com>
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>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 11:18:47 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: HE7itaXmXJ7bAoBuoy_mwZo2iHk
Message-ID: <CAKC-DJiHCVBneawU-zvnJAEbvbdUvLHJbTy5A+RNgijo3YBKnQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c05e00897ec4a053439012f"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.223.173; envelope-from=nygren@gmail.com; helo=mail-io0-f173.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.679, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1b87vO-0005IP-Ay 41b3c30d4cca230ba685b29c6e7e6c83
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/CAKC-DJiHCVBneawU-zvnJAEbvbdUvLHJbTy5A+RNgijo3YBKnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31683
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>

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).
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email