IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 01 June 2016 02:11 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 B835012D95A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 19:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.447 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, 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 JQyfN_Bl3Nrd for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 19:11:38 -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 02BFA12D959 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 19:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1b7vZ9-0005Hh-V2 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 02:07:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 02:07:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1b7vZ9-0005Hh-V2@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1b7vZ5-0005Gw-0W for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 02:07:23 +0000
Received: from mail-qk0-f173.google.com ([209.85.220.173]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1b7vZ2-0006mK-Gb for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 02:07:22 +0000
Received: by mail-qk0-f173.google.com with SMTP id c140so3986094qke.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 19:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=uADThycX4pmuqqL63lfi0v5kddyzOa24bnda6/MS1GA=; b=QrDx+lF93jZlBELa09MoyUahqt789ymE8LFRrlPnALykpgrJ8xE4X4+qDt5y5juD7e K+z14EAKjufbY+xr1w4HQHu7JJ7+wmCpZ1v3xdpekp5WnuuVkdDmfl4NS0uyPoaEjBLC NdLqGX2Rd90Bm6Auwz7qHu6n5kgWxOYh0aHvAM2yAcHWXGZkfDqC1cSQFyDPBqwuu15V CB6a6lBNrcWYikGBlC4jT5hOPPUqRty3MgiyOqXEhYSAoY/AvujiZXC6eRpjklnt9UoE GlNK5zbIFmSG3Q+MGoXLhT/XpsPL1Rq8KDg5tZQGN22pEG71z9nVH6HURl2D0TjqAymO mmng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=uADThycX4pmuqqL63lfi0v5kddyzOa24bnda6/MS1GA=; b=iuTQJH110H+Ag050Msjz8uMTdIsA1EmkTyJ5AQpT8zPKtVfHaHrRYkHOQKkPRRq5AE Ccs/uyzfElCKgFqSi9uhmnN3z0g0PbRbOuwnQzZoDND30xpIVtU364wDAm6qq39cVNnE Ox59l9Xxx+ogiTqIl/eNkbiRlXYgExK4AxrXFE8ghbFTylwhqOXEK2I8SV6BmgZGcPMq wQ3YlAGqht/l4EravJ0WvkEl10gDrnXUoV1FQKLEjDA6Jrnkz7QaP4EOy4fLrIJtoPuz epax7Dz9xu2PETzwJn3XxbzsSAN9RLYD1PE/nY8w4wpnhHgXaifIUgmapaPCj3zTgA+/ ZZRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJQ35mEQvhLjCN66tma+NR9QKNKH6iYRmtfxOEmdYdeSRzYZNiI+NYtWUKgyXMT8iAnGs9MsqkB+QnX9Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.138.194 with SMTP id m185mr36085829qkd.48.1464746814429; Tue, 31 May 2016 19:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.104.110 with HTTP; Tue, 31 May 2016 19:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6F9226AA-7545-48FB-9409-10731E3BB020@mnot.net>
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>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 12:06:54 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnX_TGkVjhxiBR-hcLMx0dW40Q8ioak0B6wX6M2-M_S=3A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.220.173; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f173.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.834, 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1b7vZ2-0006mK-Gb 4452d0c3ff78acf6de47ad17b013831a
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/CABkgnnX_TGkVjhxiBR-hcLMx0dW40Q8ioak0B6wX6M2-M_S=3A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31681
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>

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).
>>
>>      Erik
>>
>>
>> At the least, we should warn about the issues that might be encountered. Servers can then choose not to advertise services like this, and clients can choose not to consume them.
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email