IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension?

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 19:46 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 B90B511E8112 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oM9V6PJ8eCi3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3259A11E80D2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V1M2w-0001xG-Eh for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:45:26 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:45:26 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V1M2w-0001xG-Eh@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ynir@checkpoint.com>) id 1V1M2n-0001wK-5Q for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:45:17 +0000
Received: from smtp.checkpoint.com ([194.29.34.68]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ynir@checkpoint.com>) id 1V1M2m-0008FC-2T for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:45:17 +0000
Received: from IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([194.29.34.147]) by smtp.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6MJiW0o011760; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 22:44:33 +0300
X-CheckPoint: {51ED8BA0-0-1B221DC2-1FFFF}
Received: from DAG-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.3.48]) by IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.2.91]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 22:44:32 +0300
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
CC: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension?
Thread-Index: AQHOhtQTsno4szXGeU2gyoo0a+EYMZlwqYsAgAAM5gCAACu0gIAABayA
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:44:31 +0000
Message-ID: <62BA61F1-7FE2-4CC3-8756-387417462ED0@checkpoint.com>
References: <CACuKZqEBAqXs-cQF1U-g3npaXGR0LEoXZYxDv-3a+ftn-YG=_g@mail.gmail.com> <CABaLYCtT33y3Gbh5rduHNL8hFsamz34epciG+36pYbkMdwpujQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACuKZqFvzHnHx31CFz640NG7bS65k=VErNY1riuOVpsOc_92aA@mail.gmail.com> <20130722192413.GA9158@LK-Perkele-VII>
In-Reply-To: <20130722192413.GA9158@LK-Perkele-VII>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.31.21.141]
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: protection disabled
x-cpdlp: 115b22edf4f3b7c10f1708d1d32e1081966a63c398
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <97EE3EBE8D1A0340931554AFD9F81961@ad.checkpoint.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=194.29.34.68; envelope-from=ynir@checkpoint.com; helo=smtp.checkpoint.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.726, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.45, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1V1M2m-0008FC-2T a7c2fab8f8b037f193fd74d745f5cd88
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/62BA61F1-7FE2-4CC3-8756-387417462ED0@checkpoint.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18870
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 Jul 22, 2013, at 10:24 PM, Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:47:48AM -0500, Zhong Yu wrote:
>> Suppose a TLS connection is established without ALPN. Then an HTTP/1.1
>> request is sent over with Upgrade: HTTP/2.0. How should the server
>> respond?
> <snip>
> 
> There's also second abnormal case:
> TLS handshake without ALPN, but the application data starts with
> HTTP/2.0 magic…

I'm guessing that if either the TLS application data or the TCP connection in HTTP starts with the magic, it's HTTP/2.0.  Otherwise, why would we need the magic^H^H^H^HConnection Header?


>> Though "Upgrade" mechanism is less ideal than ALPN, since the server
>> must support it anyway on TCP connections, I don't see why we should
>> forbid it on TLS connections.
> 
> What about servers that are not willing to implement upgrade (it is fair
> amount of complexity)?

They'd have to stick to HTTP/1 for now, because no sane client start off with HTTP/2 for now.

> I.e. is there path to totally obsolete HTTP/1.1 in the far future?

Not by having servers or client that refuse to negotiate the version. It's also possible that by the time we can assume that we don't need HTTP/1 any more, we may have to contend with HTTP/3. 

Yoav

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email