Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem

Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com> Fri, 19 September 2014 01:01 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 6ED681A6F90 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 18:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.654
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.654 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, 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 NgUcZtpIECrg for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 18:01:24 -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 40B291A6F13 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 18:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XUmWl-00008c-GG for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:58:23 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:58:23 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XUmWl-00008c-GG@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com>) id 1XUmWK-00007o-Sp for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:57:56 +0000
Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com>) id 1XUmWK-0001Ab-7D for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:57:56 +0000
Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id fp1so2488993pdb.15 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=C16O0pERB6bmLK+Br6J3sNfu6vgFvi6ygdGBG5XxRPk=; b=Kt8pvbd84QruyWusHwSCwsq3Eq5siMjCxpNqSOxTlNZvB5GqiQlOojBVFuhpdwU14c MGP1AXVScAJZ4z+KSudLm11ACZqrUbb6YGBvSGueW/iB+9bL8Onp5+hDs7H6TqIkHlf9 /oB0A2iALEA5gyw0Ep7HTZyWd/qCjeEl7nOyNpZhHLeVN6xRA9ocl3aQT5T8W+7zar+L 7v8Z+ABkFw8q4R4ikKcxvLh9+5nbDL+aZNt6FoLSsR+j3RKnVUPFAdE59owAUGmOhVXs qqQa2ofc0SoWauoB0lFk6FeyRtMIJmGCuCiFmpHto8qRE+f/+TDRVm2BdlhVsi82945W x9yg==
X-Received: by 10.66.144.195 with SMTP id so3mr1834805pab.156.1411088250095; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Stuarts-MacBook-Pro.local ([66.187.239.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pp2sm193350pbc.66.2014.09.18.17.57.26 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <541B7F71.8090109@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:57:21 +1000
From: Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Macintosh/20140602)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <CAH_y2NF+sP9BmYuD4QbeHpwC_uj67itzaAFCnRVC6f--KDYOgg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NGXz7e3ejqy_rD=39=yYp3+cS1Dm6c3yFEYZg6tsUp5VQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWAdm1TLP2XCKNU-6RPACLfooQV73R7Gpoemv+9PNULCA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NFLjok-NRJtOw1vmSy68sf393iSOgA4K599q0BSBqbNgA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnU-CMtv8KvYU9n+QoPBOBshtQv3RfLy2qw=qVNb2O-qGg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NHrbH5Objwhq9E89QexhQtND4uOdy8q7OEckTCU17WqKg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NErRd4rxinSzEH3-uTjdWVkZu9o6sSKSf47LxfPFTRONw@mail.gmail.com> <20140917073241.GA7665@LK-Perkele-VII> <CAFewVt4pxE+9NpzYuzMKGmEdrDXzk50mC99ZbrM6M-uEoKXrHA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NGYcDvPcxDvaTRBP3p4Pnb7gw39WUDY3bNVnOGQjBgciQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFewVt7+UAJYfKAR6DRZi_mqdzSaYw6L-pT1qg=UyOaP1ojhTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NEhAEaPiUgi_vX6Oimw+Y-k3WrnL0gJZKPxQ8KZVuFVfw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnU6C+TzJzdeQZhwXucuPUrPh1yyp1cpRd9jSePMjAnONQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NEHZbWLof=ZWEa2UdjBw1Bf+kQCHzPkrhcS U80WaDibeA@mail.gmail.com> <C76D7E6B-06BA-4FF1-B0AF-804AC118A38E@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <C76D7E6B-06BA-4FF1-B0AF-804AC118A38E@gbiv.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.192.170; envelope-from=stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com; helo=mail-pd0-f170.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.817, 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
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XUmWK-0001Ab-7D f8ce54ed358a6ac934ec16d435109227
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/541B7F71.8090109@gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/27130
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>

I also think that this should not be in the HTTP2 spec, and looking the 
WG's HTTP2 charter I think that is explicitly listed as being out of scope:

Explicitly out-of-scope items include:
* Specifying the use of alternate transport-layer protocols. Note that 
it is expected that the Working Group will work with the TLS working 
group to define how the protocol is used with the TLS Protocol; any 
revisions to RFC 2818 will be done in the TLS working group.

Stuart

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I still don't believe that any of these requirements belong in h2,
> and I won't implement them even if they end up in the RFC.  It is
> not the HTTP server's responsibility to second-guess the configuration
> regarding the security properties of the underlying connections.
> We have no idea what hardware or gateways might be doing to secure those
> connections.  We don't even know what TLS library is being used,
> since all we see is an API into someone else's code.
>
> TLS requirements belong in the TLS code.
>
> ....Roy
>
>