IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Upgrade status for impl draft 1

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 27 February 2013 21:53 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 DD16821F8563 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:53:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.288, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pBxtCcAfSDD7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:53:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC5921F8550 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:53:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UAovV-0001tV-UH for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:52:37 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:52:37 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UAovV-0001tV-UH@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ted.ietf@gmail.com>) id 1UAovM-0001sl-PU for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:52:28 +0000
Received: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com ([209.85.223.177]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ted.ietf@gmail.com>) id 1UAovM-0002qy-1h for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:52:28 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id 16so1244281iea.36 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:52:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=7pwADCTCbjMpX6pjf+zIR7DS4k+bKNUlkdbPE7oNulg=; b=wGaGnP/vbnpY4aiuoxsVCtHgHjAkWBbcL43gxCI2mGndj/8G2o5CO3VZqildeQCy5h bW+y0VuFy4KuIIofkpsrih8IuESB+u3VRKo2FySxyvhTQR77ppYL6JzXTFW/ZPGsaFBs 54GZQ5gVUexRz/EY59VRtzhm7kLyWmoLFMyGQawyv9eagx2w+EjhzpKJQ8fqk9d6GrHM b7iewel25ZnR6JjFgEBxBua+tzuFwRzFzlYQr3Go5G3gMzvLAPU4el3lm/9dFCmrY8yF iUL2oYFX5dxeGbMVl1v6CnQvqeoAFJ/UZRYpqSwo6IqTJPLtPV5u7l1l7PtieztFZTFq BiMg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.191.199 with SMTP id ha7mr8153243igc.70.1362001922044; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:52:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.43.135.202 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:52:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <512E7E57.8040102@cisco.com>
References: <B0FC9D1E-08EF-4275-9851-C8F33F24FF00@mnot.net> <CAA4WUYgGD2XWRH0xXYJOR7zY16hf2w+d4XTVk8_rx+DV5iG3Ug@mail.gmail.com> <512DA753.4040402@cisco.com> <CA+9kkMDYyWcOpHH+ngG4pQNhGu50ZafeBhBofTZiobj4nvCz3A@mail.gmail.com> <512E7E57.8040102@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:52:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMD_kzgzUvOOxvXSg_uj1TEcioNPwBhq694LwJ2VP3Q-NA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: "\"William Chan (陈智昌)\"" <willchan@chromium.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.223.177; envelope-from=ted.ietf@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f177.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.760, 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: maggie.w3.org 1UAovM-0002qy-1h 69ac6dc9dd8830b37c4f158aa5b276ac
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Upgrade status for impl draft 1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CA+9kkMD_kzgzUvOOxvXSg_uj1TEcioNPwBhq694LwJ2VP3Q-NA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16905
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 Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
> Ted, the problem is that then we are essentially requiring TLS for
> implementation of HTTP 2.0.  We've said we're not going to do that.

I don't think this is quite right.  I think it means that if you use
the DNS hints mechanism, you should expect TLS.  If you have other
upgrade methods, they would not be impacted.  That doesn't require TLS
for implementation of HTTP 2.0 itself.

> But
> also, the problem you describe is within control of both clients (albeit
> with a linkage to DNSSEC) and servers by not linking two secure and
> insecure services.  Ultimately what is proposed represents no change
> because the server itself has to provide whatever capability we're
> discussing.
>
I don't really follow this; can you rephrase it?

Ted


> Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email