Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a connection
Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org> Tue, 31 May 2016 22:36 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 B7D4D12D67B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 15:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.346
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.346 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 EvLO1DebhduM for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 15:36:51 -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 7E17A12D672 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 15:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1b7sDA-0005wa-Kg for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 31 May 2016 22:32:32 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 22:32:32 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1b7sDA-0005wa-Kg@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <nygren@gmail.com>) id 1b7sD3-0005uu-Lz for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 31 May 2016 22:32:25 +0000
Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com ([209.85.223.180]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <nygren@gmail.com>) id 1b7sD2-0006rH-8h for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 31 May 2016 22:32:25 +0000
Received: by mail-io0-f180.google.com with SMTP id t40so5248342ioi.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 15:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
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=PQa0/q6C/7ZxTsf3xPXREmfcNGXS45sFANrOBTm8scQ=; b=Oopt/lGJY03nm0lfDM3zeM/s9zOvLYhC7IhTuusQbjyA4NWeUV4hlrpzuRqSn/gK81 1tuUuXd18+y0Tbaps92/1Y1WrTVYear3pxzY+s1o6tPusgUmsN7TPG63duf+lnSeQ4FX AiDBmJsrqQ/v5UZ71o3+5MWw2gOyCfw+uprY277JRugJ1yu6t0EEdiqwi/l4W54fimmE btuxPtmXMnx0rPxPH8LfI+qkSkBgauNzqSZpQyqkgElML18lpn2aKFDozKR6YcZs0MH9 KfWN9fG60TqLtz9n+aR50l7f8/nA1j2CSLrjVR0y+Z6ejGe0bt2VUxeYPndNj7BzUr3B c7ag==
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=PQa0/q6C/7ZxTsf3xPXREmfcNGXS45sFANrOBTm8scQ=; b=NcCvzDPReGn9V/1hLJfjxJ6a0UU9n+6/2JuM/T1mSotyERGY0qWQ6M9QzpWjj7Hoqd celAFKlZyNdmgNqitVZM/2Dhx73TQWxVyBrXpWKBa3oJvQjSa4L3xkR0r2T6Cci7bVmA j2LMKSahzt/1s1YO02STSJYaT+au26IKuWLiVyXmLuTZoqaoq6kYcK4aIsY1QtRf9L66 r6ih73YXkHC+EWJAv5C2yDKjU8scU19fkOZMR277WHmdALx7AmygRLimx1uQrr3n0Fe6 Nk/MaG3Bk4cRS2z1ZzQK0Hvyzxgya4yPUajsE1Z7IMyX+lKFyknCj/RZZR759tpuC6yn r9Kw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJzhSO6FnQ3Or8Etlx3IeekD4euUtGzHpfoTkyGltBCP2vFgaNajXXPqwQLB0cBA4Ww2oa5avpQ2+6PhA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.164.81 with SMTP id n78mr1301033ioe.48.1464733918323; Tue, 31 May 2016 15:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: nygren@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.146.134 with HTTP; Tue, 31 May 2016 15:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D5D8F908-27FB-4C81-8CAE-AD4B50939F05@mnot.net>
References: <CAKC-DJivd-h_H-oOznjTN8=so2zQOhbwuWFkD9hpgvLTqs-WnA@mail.gmail.com> <D5D8F908-27FB-4C81-8CAE-AD4B50939F05@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 18:31:58 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9CZQwY4UgRokBLamfpHUZjslDYk
Message-ID: <CAKC-DJhRX1Ac212_A-+h9ygDYidgxtK9RAHhWZP892uM9OEUgA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114221f6e4862405342af029"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.223.180; envelope-from=nygren@gmail.com; helo=mail-io0-f180.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.679, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1b7sD2-0006rH-8h c0814b0c541ba324d97e9295e24b79d2
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/CAKC-DJhRX1Ac212_A-+h9ygDYidgxtK9RAHhWZP892uM9OEUgA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31679
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>
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.
>
- constraining scheme (http vs https) on a connecti… Erik Nygren
- Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a conn… Mark Nottingham
- Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a conn… Erik Nygren
- Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a conn… Mark Nottingham
- Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a conn… Martin Thomson
- Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a conn… Erik Nygren
- Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a conn… Mark Nottingham
- Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a conn… Erik Nygren