IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 01 June 2016 01:15 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 C081312D955 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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
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 McM1d7nSuwP4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:15:24 -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 E11B412D58B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1b7ugU-0003sg-Tm for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 01:10:58 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 01:10:58 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1b7ugU-0003sg-Tm@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 <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1b7ugO-0003rh-6O for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 01:10:52 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1b7ugM-0004PO-JV for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 01:10:51 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [120.149.194.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B86F222E1F3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 21:10:26 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAKC-DJhRX1Ac212_A-+h9ygDYidgxtK9RAHhWZP892uM9OEUgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 11:10:26 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <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>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.338, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 1b7ugM-0004PO-JV 19ae1327240b2a5779519140b073523f
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/6F9226AA-7545-48FB-9409-10731E3BB020@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31680
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>

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