IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New versions of encryption drafts

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Thu, 22 December 2016 12:23 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 74100129546 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:23:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, 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 xpGsTw0Ti5t3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:23:46 -0800 (PST)
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 1818E1293D6 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:23:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cK2MK-0007Il-Di for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:20:32 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:20:32 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cK2MK-0007Il-Di@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1cK2M6-0007HN-KZ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:20:18 +0000
Received: from mail-qk0-f174.google.com ([209.85.220.174]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1cK2M5-0003XH-OL for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:20:18 +0000
Received: by mail-qk0-f174.google.com with SMTP id q68so112095190qki.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:19:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=oClFsDnilNoXBM8P562N+YIGjqnK1rEQonzcRpEv+o4=; b=mzJdfEjZ9y7I5hwuIKebsQqKvJydg/TX9eEsZw05idmlgO9VnQLB0FSaaL/ASb/dMC w7isT2BzgTmujpltUWL7DA2dUIeEu0zLRINjEJtRuLygImcq7Wfj5MTc9qKhNsEK4OHO P5pfeIGR1xj7J2kuCDkL3xLLF7EOSP+3QfVcPk1Gm76xuf3pESyymuZt4Agg7fet7W6W RUHgA9BsVUPfjiH2om4aKoLr1UAvCQEbJIH3s4ZbfCx25Xcnio7WkqN1zWq7H/UwkNL0 /OuxHejuYewszplkQVd/og7nFI/QzBLOL4MGYs6bF0SwLmJ8jknUrJrPSwBPZSpgdhDb nAyA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=oClFsDnilNoXBM8P562N+YIGjqnK1rEQonzcRpEv+o4=; b=Cx7bRoMcii9vJMkrBBrVw8TAXdIlEaznOEBzCJRV/zy0+9J43a6dDaCL3uD+8TYfyI YyHQXuMNcL4lCLDdUF7WilMd3DQyJ6uo8AJHYy6JZ1MYRvi6Ugxp04lH9WiXwXzhvbs4 fvkg7DDh1yB2CmFAWhzixpgMXnVHBMwVA5j8IVJQ0LR35BVtDkTiWyAFnX4YpkTBlj2m LLAT7MBGuqBsUFm1i/DtlVBS+N4bEJPB3Ud7DtTDZbfqGXgb18h6xlasMbzTCTMfecfi Mxf5ydwnYRGRQCIZFZ5MiC5HtAq/XM6V5XpYyvPfUqOjAPoxskejw0WL8IC8/IS1gx3y LTeQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJpcTFvNJcWJwObHdeclyRUDKCA9oqdDNBzK0YIX9NlMHUW2VpPUkHOvVFFKUl4REmuXa2J/yNCb+5nmw==
X-Received: by 10.55.101.82 with SMTP id z79mr8138492qkb.68.1482409191737; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:19:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.38.233 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:19:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWhc6ZdjgV5degiJuK-P6qSZk_uMjLm9zctyqdOSUaxPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnWhc6ZdjgV5degiJuK-P6qSZk_uMjLm9zctyqdOSUaxPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 23:19:51 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXOSMmL8HmOxpHbXP1md+r_UCRiN6HZORmSunPns1h6aw@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.220.174; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f174.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.359, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cK2M5-0003XH-OL dbb9f698d87b334feb4f8bca184e9a46
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: New versions of encryption drafts
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnXOSMmL8HmOxpHbXP1md+r_UCRiN6HZORmSunPns1h6aw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33218
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>

Ugh, I just realized that I didn't open an issue for the record size
issue that was opened on the list earlier.  That means that I didn't
fix that either.

On 22 December 2016 at 16:33, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've just uploaded new versions of the two encryption-y drafts that I'm editing.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption/
>
> This captures the discussion on the list, which is really just two changes:
>   - Coalescing on HTTP and with HTTP is now verboten.
>   - The .well-known resource is much simpler.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding/
>
> This also captures what has been discussed, primarily the removal of
> the header fields.
>
> I have not addressed the concern raised about the format of the key
> identifier. I realize that some protocols are unable to handle binary
> identifiers, but others rely on them.  There's probably some text that
> can be added that will help here, but I'm not seeing it right now.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email