Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension?

William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> Tue, 23 July 2013 18:58 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 5750511E8372 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 Oe4dPYYnneib for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EF8311E837C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V1hmX-0002yO-DO for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:57:57 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:57:57 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V1hmX-0002yO-DO@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <willchan@google.com>) id 1V1hmO-0002uu-Ea for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:57:48 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.219.51]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <willchan@google.com>) id 1V1hmM-0003Ji-JE for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:57:48 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id i4so11916252oah.38 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hc3rI7VXhtQMdfpGNXYxtjvBE+fAwaigfrwZSmTO7EQ=; b=gaed3P8QaOMSyTparUczLilBvkXR8SoqIBADeRPzZV2bL0XY5KuIrXjpHihq8mmjd1 lZdyP8mScpLK2eNVaemMcQgIbTz+ziOEMNWlbT13Xg9YAzG/ddv9jINjwDiokGgNoSdC S5lXmVkuZ4/XoNDOtonstVr/BKmwosRHwK+KNmXQwivbVcyIqdLMHrSX2xr+FX0rZKyz OhAQzq/w4eTB+uq8LxsyA5MzrihLNQQ/glFK/WYpIi/wHc+5kuWAGQmLXfmb61Vg6nXA 4LL46oYbYtZZfZgbjfdVgkGW2MqjaGjYcU++ehQkT0irTfzNC+NSk1XKriBLZ9NLkDtr q1Iw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hc3rI7VXhtQMdfpGNXYxtjvBE+fAwaigfrwZSmTO7EQ=; b=BSiEv0tcxXG8LstPnFhQYPTBzu9R4v01ttrSPipuz5Okst/sL0dc6PK/HsWjAfejFU YzXzMNFXSmXn7nH1OipxHj25ynma8+tsWIE/MyubmbLREYiKfqUV+Z0gwYPVc8VzgczX H4h1aK53Jqb2OzcAPTzSV9eGcbEjpobrGMu8I=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=hc3rI7VXhtQMdfpGNXYxtjvBE+fAwaigfrwZSmTO7EQ=; b=EFrISidi5FErG8prQ831aRtClv3fM6n3VUJFPzfWjT53aYj6qzf2F1zGiGOtDoLDxD fEZQ3o5AwF9bML1mnTV0rst74WZEa6Zw8PhJx83XH8aIokf9d8Ky4ss8fd5tOfCnDunV w7KYIpjjzbXbtzW+AhyT7AmWqh8l54MC431evZlj3iD3vxqMuO9BnZ2wb78sqXksLLLU Kuj2jwR11JkjRnhrrSf3l4img2vcq0t8XjGJ66VREcM0yEQ1G1jM0hDSZJlgjAgKr9+a OiXkwnny5M4I9LiAczIPp2i6mugVyh7avt8/YW6crYU06Znt8RlBAydNnRJ4XVOPmqy8 cuqg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.153.49 with SMTP id vd17mr10884igb.22.1374605840438; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: willchan@google.com
Received: by 10.64.129.164 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACuKZqHJ-x3Q69Uvtoj4C1TGy4F+PeUyqzbdUxEUVZOVr2KEnA@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> <CACuKZqHJ-x3Q69Uvtoj4C1TGy4F+PeUyqzbdUxEUVZOVr2KEnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:57:20 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: D9CXxCIjT9g1LjFgv86ybIAAk9Y
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYiA5A2pnqMOrntb-B_uGQRBAGeaAAf8ELtBmHhCzan63Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= <willchan@chromium.org>
To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e014954bed37dde04e2325c67
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkFMZrmXfHoL+xZwmj06da+r+gd3dKi8aLXVAt/t5euBmu5KsV4svBCC4Q8+p+cz6ZJ20cwwr8H+I6K11TDM7/wTqvRgy38ZPDoP7ijvXrQp0gXjYFMr/5XuA0BXQx1qE27lB5z2tBg0kqPQdoKz7zCWEk+eGgOaTk7O9jGW4fXY2EaBdKuTj2BCpuQNvemwX9llLii
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.51; envelope-from=willchan@google.com; helo=mail-oa0-f51.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.741, 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 1V1hmM-0003Ji-JE 8955d05c3c793f491ecd15f9d570a79a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAA4WUYiA5A2pnqMOrntb-B_uGQRBAGeaAAf8ELtBmHhCzan63Q@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18885
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 find your argument for mandating HTTP Upgrade to HTTP/2.0 over TLS
uncompelling. If others find it compelling, I would be interested in
hearing so.


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Therefore if the spec allows TLS-Upgrade, it might as well mandate it.
>
> I mean, "it might as well mandate all compliant implementations to
> support the Upgrade mechanism on a TLS connection"
>