IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Discussion of 9.2.2

"Martin Nilsson" <nilsson@opera.com> Sat, 27 September 2014 16:02 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADEFA1A1B9A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 09:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.687
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.687 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 zVzs-zRUJf0i for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 09:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C006D1A1B99 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 09:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XXuPM-0003X7-7z for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 15:59:40 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 15:59:40 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XXuPM-0003X7-7z@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nilsson@opera.com>) id 1XXuOm-0003Vr-38 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 15:59:04 +0000
Received: from mail-we0-f176.google.com ([74.125.82.176]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nilsson@opera.com>) id 1XXuOl-00036p-33 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 15:59:04 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id w61so10027900wes.7 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 08:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:to:subject:references:date :mime-version:from:organization:message-id:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=WNH2FB5s9A07L9pDIsi8pgXYarBHqcbq89O16VUttkw=; b=a+X8Kmf/EFJLF0BgUtfBTvaGbJjjJ0eZSCp2mN11hrMR4jwFXC06TgqtGQvZBEM50t esafZRHjngzcURsai2DqndDnsSOEeWj4sJLKADelgXAJb+sy/t7HTCIlLnU3NV176RYo p7RGT/QuknNXd0ouPKI2dYfglE3/YNbXwPxBJumJJ0kzVd+7Z5xQxrHtLE/I+WO//rwh /lUv7adPl2eMCVqqwRSrciOwN7Bx8154k0nUz3Q2e6TKLeRSbfnRWCTYVhpLbp3anuwc JJ7svUrO0BWKp5Cw5z/FRlZti9sIyxmY7ON78cKiWcW+8yFmoZNWUNgcBJvgVeZGA+fq saWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl/kanIijlwbKdzTmKh3TmC1xWPRTM/owRhr5Aj3UCtO4RPNks8mQw9vG3whOAIjmxlNQWt
X-Received: by 10.194.19.133 with SMTP id f5mr11514708wje.59.1411833516126; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 08:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uranium.sthat4.btopenzone.com ([217.41.228.179]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bl9sm1946152wib.24.2014.09.27.08.58.35 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 27 Sep 2014 08:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------48wIAA0Mc5yHMmvgSQGUqu"
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <F0D4BA2A-46B2-4F1A-8A23-1A319A3E5FC0@mnot.net> <CABkgnnWszVer8Y3qgmEQnxNKUhroUEeseC8JkBbGT2P6z3iZxQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NEvsTaZQpfAajycuo9xqKqd3Pu9aCtVGZLZez7Ux=p+Yw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 17:58:41 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>
Organization: Opera Software
Message-ID: <op.xmurz3mxiw9drz@uranium.sthat4.btopenzone.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH_y2NEvsTaZQpfAajycuo9xqKqd3Pu9aCtVGZLZez7Ux=p+Yw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.02 (Win32)
Received-SPF: permerror client-ip=74.125.82.176; envelope-from=nilsson@opera.com; helo=mail-we0-f176.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XXuOl-00036p-33 cd9498f3bc7a2521671916261daec81f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/op.xmurz3mxiw9drz@uranium.sthat4.btopenzone.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/27294
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 Fri, 26 Sep 2014 23:04:41 +0200, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

>
> Who is to say that a crypto emergency wont arise that requires the  
> deployment of TLS1.2 ciphers that are unknown for the purposes of the  
> http2 >implementation?     If cipher evolution does not pan out as  
> expected and deployers are forced to bend whatever rules they can with  
> configuration, >then we still may have interoperability problems.

Do you believe we will intentionally release a new cipher that isn't  
strong enough to be acceptable for HTTP/2? If no, then there isn't a  
problem here.

/Martin Nilsson

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status