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

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Fri, 19 September 2014 06:13 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 78C3E1A884E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 h2fFqiobsn3B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:13:45 -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 497FB1A883F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XUrQ1-0007sL-QE for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 06:11:45 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 06:11:45 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XUrQ1-0007sL-QE@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1XUrPj-0007nw-SI for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 06:11:27 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1XUrPi-0007vi-IA for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 06:11:27 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id s8J6B3Oj014086; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:11:03 +0200
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:11:03 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20140919061103.GC13993@1wt.eu>
References: <CAH_y2NF+sP9BmYuD4QbeHpwC_uj67itzaAFCnRVC6f--KDYOgg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNopynmwvwWLXvuC0q7skunFXcfRoVHe9s7BKcoCwaBgWQ@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> <54194A22.5010000@zinks.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54194A22.5010000@zinks.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.783, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XUrPi-0007vi-IA 2859f5e3875c53d029a34d93877ee3a0
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/20140919061103.GC13993@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/27133
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, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:45:22AM +0200, Roland Zink wrote:
> So how are new ciphers added later? Does this require a new HTTP2 RFC, 
> or a new TLS RFC or do they need to be registered with IANA? What if one 
> of the now acceptable ciphers is no longer considered secure and should 
> be disabled?

Simple response : it will not be possible to upgrade them anymore because
servers will have to change their cipher suite and become suddenly
incompatible with already deployed browsers. Updating the spec does not
mean upgrading all implementations at once... And advertising a new ALPN
name will not mean that servers will be able to propose a different cipher
suite depending on what protocol version is selected.

> Doesn't this cipher selection belong into TLS and not h2?

Sure!

Willy