Re: HTTP 2.0 in the clear and over TLS
Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com> Tue, 30 July 2013 15:30 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 1886221E8082 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pH4MdeQYpEOS for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7EC11E80A2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V4Brd-0002gj-Mk for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:29:29 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:29:29 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V4Brd-0002gj-Mk@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <bizzbyster@gmail.com>) id 1V4BrV-0002fz-2p for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:29:21 +0000
Received: from mail-vb0-f45.google.com ([209.85.212.45]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <bizzbyster@gmail.com>) id 1V4BrQ-00050f-2M for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:29:21 +0000
Received: by mail-vb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id p14so3984794vbm.32 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ck7m1VkcPwB8Dx7ENV2FLKnXbRURve1o/fg/hhnQ4NA=; b=ChcZAGkTR0292NkNwKjEClwOeQj/tXiUCr3B1yAWQ5ZYTK76TzPHa/iWu0HfmJqCgG YdqQZSTCxq3cJ1MDxP4f+246KpO3MDglMwkRdZTJHSoL0L3QFRNEQ40vBxVBCOpH/dZY MgdjCBIP92eLE4CxbkZQW79S3Msn/CKJuMjKbyO9MaW09ep3A5/i/80xbLxLSNzg/uZh hvY9c4oQNkqCHhVTnhODugkgR4rAzzsrsRJaqTe9qtjivSIRHRU1+iDfBKqtkXKVcaMA vbh8dUOxtxVu09msT/jPR5ls/QhcJ0yyfLyE25WkejKaJAa28z+zGx5h2UvOglpUiIRe YMZw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.230.135 with SMTP id sy7mr27656646vec.42.1375198130325; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.58.233.115 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYjMFxAznaXdgz28GjFM4z_n5s811oNT61jQ9Xndkb=7GQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <32754_1375115822_51F69A2E_32754_8403_1_5AE9CCAA1B4A2248AB61B4C7F0AD5FB906C6BC40@PEXCVZYM14.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAA4WUYhj0-h4MeL7pJC-gq_bZjnj7KHHUv5YQJGkf_7wGkyGFA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYj9W0abSpwxf7eGR3CMWkOpqDL1kzyRxfSXRj5bphjsiw@mail.gmail.com> <CANmPAYEsngMs+x3WLrUm10YRCoi2vrnzKDDt_N+5V9fdcqk9YA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYjMFxAznaXdgz28GjFM4z_n5s811oNT61jQ9Xndkb=7GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:28:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CANmPAYFpSjRCpvgKKwciuiovuZwVnmrO-SNP=nkzsK9c=f=drQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
To: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: "emile.stephan@orange.com" <emile.stephan@orange.com>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bdc87be0dd1c804e2bc4441"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.212.45; envelope-from=bizzbyster@gmail.com; helo=mail-vb0-f45.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.710, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V4BrQ-00050f-2M b82d4c5a66e2d94e89bb9a155f8c7940
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP 2.0 in the clear and over TLS
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CANmPAYFpSjRCpvgKKwciuiovuZwVnmrO-SNP=nkzsK9c=f=drQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18977
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>
No need to speculate about Google but in general content owners will have a tough decision IMHO because TLS costs 1 additional round trip per domain at minimum (and the number of domains per web site is increasing -- http://httparchive.org/trends.php#numDomains&maxDomainReqs). This gets to be significant, especially if you are audacious about performance goals -- http://www.strangeloopnetworks.com/blog/are-your-performance-goals-audacious-enough/ . Peter On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:58 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>wrote: > I'm not really interested in discussing speculations about what we > (Google) will do in the future. I think we've already made our stance > relatively clear. > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>wrote: > >> HTTP 2.0 in the clear will be faster than over TLS. It will be >> interesting to see if Google will continue to trade speed for privacy when >> the standard supports a faster option. >> >> Peter >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:01 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) < >> willchan@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> Sorry, I am inexact. Some people may have previously said otherwise, but >>> currently to my knowledge no one is vocally opposing including a HTTP/2.0 >>> in the clear mechanism in the spec, and the current draft spec does provide >>> such a mechanism. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:00 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) < >>> willchan@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> No one has said otherwise. Please see the section in the spec where we >>>> provide a way to negotiate HTTP/2.0 in the clear via HTTP Upgrade: >>>> http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/#discover-http. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:37 AM, <emile.stephan@orange.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi,**** >>>>> >>>>> ** ** >>>>> >>>>> HTTP2 must work in the clear and over TLS. This is required because >>>>> HTTP1.1 and HTTP2 must coexist to ease the migration to HTTP2, and to >>>>> accelerate HTTP2 deployments. **** >>>>> >>>>> ** ** >>>>> >>>>> Regards**** >>>>> >>>>> Emile**** >>>>> >>>>> ** ** >>>>> >>>>> *De :* Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet@apple.com <msweet@apple.com>] >>>>> *Envoyé :* dimanche 28 juillet 2013 14:12 >>>>> *À :* Eliot Lear >>>>> *Cc :* William Chan (陈智昌) ; Zhong Yu; HTTP Working Group >>>>> *Objet :* Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension?**** >>>>> >>>>> ** ** >>>>> >>>>> ... and don't forgot some of the more obscure usage of HTTP, such as >>>>> HTTP over USB in the USB-IF's IPP USB Specification:**** >>>>> >>>>> ** ** >>>>> >>>>> http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs**** >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **** >>>>> >>>>> There isn't much point in using TLS over USB (and a lot of cost issues >>>>> for that class of printer against it), and we need to continue to use the >>>>> same USB end points/interfaces, so upgrade remains an important feature of >>>>> HTTP/2.0 for me/Apple...**** >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **** >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad**** >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2013-07-28, at 12:46 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:**** >>>>> >>>>> ** ** >>>>> >>>>> On 7/23/13 7:34 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:**** >>>>> >>>>> FWIW, it seems reasonable to me to have the spec allow HTTPS 2.0 >>>>> without TLS extension. If you want to Upgrade, be my guest. I have no plans >>>>> for my browser to support that, and I don't think Google servers will >>>>> support it either, because we care strongly about the advantages of >>>>> TLS-ALPN vs Upgrade.**** >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not only that, I don't think we can reasonably call this HTTP 2.0 if >>>>> we have no path to do it in the clear.**** >>>>> >>>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >>>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >>>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >>>>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. >>>>> >>>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; >>>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >>>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. >>>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
- HTTP 2.0 in the clear and over TLS emile.stephan
- Re: HTTP 2.0 in the clear and over TLS William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: HTTP 2.0 in the clear and over TLS William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: HTTP 2.0 in the clear and over TLS Peter Lepeska
- Re: HTTP 2.0 in the clear and over TLS Fred Akalin
- Re: HTTP 2.0 in the clear and over TLS William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: HTTP 2.0 in the clear and over TLS Amos Jeffries
- Re: HTTP 2.0 in the clear and over TLS Peter Lepeska
- Re: HTTP 2.0 in the clear and over TLS Martin Thomson
- Re: HTTP 2.0 in the clear and over TLS Peter Lepeska