IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: #148: Reasonable Assurances and H2C

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 26 February 2016 14:42 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 577F51ACD7A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:42:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.286
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, 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 OW7M53Pk70mV for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:42:27 -0800 (PST)
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 366131ACCF4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:42:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aZJWh-000165-Kv for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:37:51 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:37:51 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aZJWh-000165-Kv@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 <barryleiba@gmail.com>) id 1aZJWY-00014a-2Q for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:37:42 +0000
Received: from mail-io0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <barryleiba@gmail.com>) id 1aZJWT-0004al-SF for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:37:41 +0000
Received: by mail-io0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 9so118990015iom.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:37:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=o/s3rU8xd52VeJgJBHG5+xDdFzzvNbmoQ6zF3jFiFb4=; b=BYE6FuwjY9vdXYJw1hp9vsKtmiO4sejEPIWv8Cze4sFHwPAaEWzQxLcpZo4VUItpSA LQLBhOK//stVKALVJ0DNK6vsMwpW3b+LWndNBoM8nwI/LtLSCWxyeOLDBFIuEeBw/0hn 5c7IsfQ4iLD+AKkXbb6QoIni9KUWdj3kr3p4rOqXgzjaL/k0y0eLeAPIwnRxvhujp9i8 2ng+uI5NHOrhe7GMLVNrdwXoGxbVfeQbjSz8sKmABtk1leKFVVJSOJahUAlAdGN3h8i7 bcxH9kbKbh2FreYGao0EBdtqaXcaPJdBCcMVPHjwWS2H5R2G8iTGCCMbcNmhylSI/UfT yEEA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=o/s3rU8xd52VeJgJBHG5+xDdFzzvNbmoQ6zF3jFiFb4=; b=k8qCBqg5od6RmCY3R3FUfhsMQnpKBP5gHGvbC2V4Z5Zb+roD8dXofF6ApJB6RXWLnQ WxR1y4eCzfEnfxv3yCILqMK7en8PpEhCB3WgCd7y4KTDTxJcGpAuqS4nLFbJ5RrJEtEk /kGdJ5SLqb/W/3kMzcuc1ZxyJZRgHvXWuo+vS1y5C/ZCXUx6lXXNrfYaxivD8P2COr/2 OsGLIPOA2FLkn0y9ZBM5naTJzPcVDTegqKXXnjLPJk1MvPUZfMkWjY/QvO5fu6bbdz8i kIGS9kaz6l2AlOb0PPomnHx8SALoZzpcd1sWw65T0yZuc+HiJxyT2HfMg7JMfDz7H5SG +ePQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTrgg37nImbM3ZChGaSrSV7U3GYehNpcgn/2/Vd8kUbSQJifFTqqYh8VODp8IKuu1PAxWcUn3imuFzx7g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.131.206 with SMTP id n75mr8325647ioi.189.1456497430889; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.36.156.5 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:37:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <12592576-7F89-4309-B97D-753C9402CE7B@mnot.net>
References: <20160209074851.32332.24065.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20160209182822.C37A959F@welho-filter2.welho.com> <B7164F24-DDA1-4753-8A8B-04809B1965FF@mnot.net> <CAC4RtVCCExJNE0y8480vC1W56NP4XhzfvLs+ASh1Qy-UcDPBNw@mail.gmail.com> <C2145C5A-0255-43F9-A44A-F6C7974CDD4C@mnot.net> <CABkgnnW3-c1qaC_N2UP5TLnPS0rrOYjOYFb4nhUzfQ_8AFsTJA@mail.gmail.com> <072D900D-422E-4168-8DCF-51A739BC9E5A@mnot.net> <CABkgnnWAbKY8RZ5gvjPan3M_-XpjFSau0yDN97H=CfLb0DNL2g@mail.gmail.com> <2DDC5527-43AC-4BD2-8ED9-F68D747A7E0C@mnot.net> <56CFFE31.6090503@greenbytes.de> <12592576-7F89-4309-B97D-753C9402CE7B@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:37:10 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: h89xuAx1ZCb_cgzL-_NmeoVcNAM
Message-ID: <CALaySJJz_FK=JRtEPo1PH5VTJb=XbUJZE711hBLKadrdsvt_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.223.173; envelope-from=barryleiba@gmail.com; helo=mail-io0-f173.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.882, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 1aZJWT-0004al-SF 9121c259981315f55c1bf3633daa6761
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #148: Reasonable Assurances and H2C
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CALaySJJz_FK=JRtEPo1PH5VTJb=XbUJZE711hBLKadrdsvt_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31106
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>

>>>   For the purposes of this document, "reasonable assurances" can be
>>>   established through use of a TLS-based protocol with the certificate
>>>   checks defined in [RFC2818].  Other means of establishing them MUST
>>>   be documented in an RFC that updates this specification.  Clients MAY
>>>   impose additional criteria for establishing reasonable assurances.
>>
>> As far as I understand, this is a hook for draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-03,
>> which is currently labeled "experimental". It is my understanding that
>> experimental RFCs will have a hard time "updating" a standards-track
>> RFC, though...
>
> Barry, any insights here?

Yeh, why is "that updates this document" there?  Why do readers of
this document have to know about means that are provided in other
documents, such that "updates" is needed?

Barry

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status