Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension?

Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com> Tue, 23 July 2013 21:30 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 2385D11E8136 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 y9JscuPW1leY for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11EA111E8383 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V1k9i-0006K4-7r for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 21:30:02 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 21:30:02 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V1k9i-0006K4-7r@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <rch@google.com>) id 1V1k9Z-0005Jj-AQ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 21:29:53 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com ([209.85.214.176]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <rch@google.com>) id 1V1k9Y-0000e2-8V for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 21:29:53 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id v19so11394926obq.35 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=R3Dg7xNgLQBipeynVhQZSRcRtxneqm3XYfqjErLvniE=; b=ADAv5+Gfwz2aEF5cNzswmlHSY337Ho3PC34VJMkRJi4ehH08NlhiJZjTA4+iT50dgM w9ev1vfQdPH3BPgW2x6KFTtwZ6ccFl/qsKcCdgfE8OYasxg3yCG/FkQL7sbdWn0cDu8z O0P8lR1ICfUISi21gHx0+fstfTHSRYxhMbWj7BS8qNn86jlnFe/c9FXysBwN+TXBthDP cxkk4ZFTv82SyK5JAKT+5RrUvUW/W51B9eSaLc1kieu+BfJVfJEpYV3WigwL/I7wG2nZ 30SYFUIe+epxVjRzod3FfiHWXYWsm6HraDuypGrMYI6cZEu2aGVFJc846pTK1umeKlDA oT3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=R3Dg7xNgLQBipeynVhQZSRcRtxneqm3XYfqjErLvniE=; b=GpKmi3CVTSTnkmBy7JECxsw0lnr2wEQSGnhqCkLD3t49B3mXYJOsluvwfwY9K2cVAv yT4Dlw52nUl9Gz16SefPsS1uspFUhBl/9b3nF9oGJl8oF3qbCpnd5xc78yA4wfKA9lyI 40qpZeR7RbHDPeQxc4+0uyfpj2Uao8b+nZcjF4r4Io05VOxjzSPbPzqx/iSFlHYhkuFO ouBl+AC72it8+Y4fxL8ugiI5iJSCD9RBt9X8nIBjVc8KelpBVDGQetywFNcsRLwp0pnZ 7CSL8nuSQ26epGc3sbkgeculs1C5T2HvjsnAV/S7Xxigv3+vqQLJA6YI+QJ9Sspul26L raFA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.137.65 with SMTP id in1mr10996046icc.103.1374614966195; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.22.105 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACuKZqGjYtmkFBEEDX+s=n=_15frt+qoQws4TWgiDEijBE+Mow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACuKZqEBAqXs-cQF1U-g3npaXGR0LEoXZYxDv-3a+ftn-YG=_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYjS=JXYAYKe0ueqUFbdEUC3pM8xuj--b=F=WPgnSc9xYg@mail.gmail.com> <CACuKZqGjYtmkFBEEDX+s=n=_15frt+qoQws4TWgiDEijBE+Mow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:29:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJ_4DfR=OgXx8e7j=Fmvt+VmoHUE2y8dT6E=6-ifuKCoyF8SPg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2456ec3732104e2347c76
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlTz4aDfQOLso6Is9ehxwLR08Hxl/FYuFV6by/NVhc4PdmJw6T1qy4ONzWjhSnGo0vwZifnja8SK+dFtXCutuRvPZfBDRZ8bZlPxyI1KKhqF0JM9PsC6ZnSGCNRC7WUQNpoD3oGMB9gif7/XuV3rvOx6uOriLDeGiIY+7jh/cAmySNzuwIFeiSCElsJVNy/sOI0pyM+
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.176; envelope-from=rch@google.com; helo=mail-ob0-f176.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.768, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V1k9Y-0000e2-8V ceff286362a77a5eedad0ad776963554
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAJ_4DfR=OgXx8e7j=Fmvt+VmoHUE2y8dT6E=6-ifuKCoyF8SPg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18889
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 Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree TLS-ALPN is much better than TLS-Upgrade, but it'll take the
> rest of the world some time to get there.


​It's going to take the rest of the world some time to deploy HTTP/2, as
well.  Do you think that ALPN will be harder to deploy than HTTP/2?



> Allowing TLS-Upgrade
> meanwhile probably will not lessen the motivation to deploy ALPN,
> since it's in the best interest of all clients and servers to reduce a
> round trip.
>
> *If* the spec allows TLS-Upgrade, some servers will use it before they
> can do ALPN, and some clients will support it. Chrome will face the
> heat - a competitor browser can talk to a server in HTTPS/2.0 with
> Upgrade, yet Chrome can only talk to it in HTTPS/1.1.  Will Chrome
> stick to its principle and refuse to speak with the vulgar Upgrade? I
> bet a lunch that it will budge.
>
> Therefore if the spec allows TLS-Upgrade, it might as well mandate it.
>
> The other option is to absolutely forbid TLS-Upgrade and disown any
> implementation that does it, deliberately or accidentally (the latter
> being more likely).
>
> Zhong Yu
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
> <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> > FWIW, it seems reasonable to me to have the spec allow HTTPS 2.0 without
> TLS
> > extension. If you want to Upgrade, be my guest. I have no plans for my
> > browser to support that, and I don't think Google servers will support it
> > either, because we care strongly about the advantages of TLS-ALPN vs
> > Upgrade.
> >
> > IIRC, Twitter doesn't use NPN for the same reasons (lack of TLS extension
> > support on certain mobile clients). I believe they don't care about
> public
> > interop though, they just use dedicated VIPs with clients they control.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The draft mandates TLS extension ALPN for any https 2.0 connections,
> >> but why is that necessary? Why can't we also establish an https 2.0
> >> connection through the Upgrade mechanism, without ALPN? TLS extension
> >> may not be available/convenient on some platforms for some time;
> >> requiring it may discourage some potential implementers.
> >>
> >> Zhong Yu
> >>
> >
>
>