Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension?

Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi> Mon, 22 July 2013 19:26 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 4C3FF21F95EF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:26:34 -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=[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 wx4OD2Oln1yB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:26:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E471611E80D2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V1Liz-0006LY-PB for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:24:49 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:24:49 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V1Liz-0006LY-PB@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>) id 1V1Lio-0006Kp-Sx for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:24:38 +0000
Received: from emh02.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.108]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>) id 1V1Lin-0007dA-Ts for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:24:38 +0000
Received: from saunalahti-vams (vs3-12.mail.saunalahti.fi [62.142.5.96]) by emh02.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with SMTP id 59CB1817EA; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 22:24:14 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from emh03.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.109]) by vs3-12.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.96]) with SMTP (gateway) id A0412B24603; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 22:24:14 +0300
Received: from LK-Perkele-VII (a88-112-44-140.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.112.44.140]) by emh03.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 223F7188762; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 22:24:13 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 22:24:13 +0300
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130722192413.GA9158@LK-Perkele-VII>
References: <CACuKZqEBAqXs-cQF1U-g3npaXGR0LEoXZYxDv-3a+ftn-YG=_g@mail.gmail.com> <CABaLYCtT33y3Gbh5rduHNL8hFsamz34epciG+36pYbkMdwpujQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACuKZqFvzHnHx31CFz640NG7bS65k=VErNY1riuOVpsOc_92aA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACuKZqFvzHnHx31CFz640NG7bS65k=VErNY1riuOVpsOc_92aA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
X-Antivirus: VAMS
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.142.5.108; envelope-from=ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi; helo=emh02.mail.saunalahti.fi
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.500, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1V1Lin-0007dA-Ts 334441b9046367df2e529fe99c82e88b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20130722192413.GA9158@LK-Perkele-VII>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18869
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 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...

> 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)?

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

-Ilari