On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:25 AM, Wendy Roome wrote:
> Thanks, Michael. That's why I brought this up in the first place: I didn't
> know what that statement in -14 meant, and I wanted clarification. I can
> think of at least three interpretations:
> 
> 1. If an ALTO server chooses to do authentication/encryption, it must do
> it with SSL/TLS. That is, an ALTO server may choose to offer just an
> unsecured/unauthenticated http: interface, or just a secure https:
> interface, or both.
> 
> 2. A server must provide an encrypted/secure SSL/TLS interface as well as
> an unencrypted interface. That is, a compliant ALTO server must support
> both http: and https: requests.
> 
> 3. A server is only allowed to provide an encrypted/secure SSL/TLS
> interface. That is, a compliant ALTO server cannot accept unsecured http:
> requests.
> 
> I prefer #1. I can live with #2, but I don't think it's necessary. And I
> strongly oppose #3.
> 
>       - Wendy Roome

Speaking as a network security and network measurement person, I have the 
opposite reaction.  #3 is optimal, #2 I can live with, and I strongly advise 
against #1.

For server authentication, TLS imposes four costs.  

Three are trivial: the amount of CPU usage for key exchange, the cost for a 
certificate (GoDaddy claims $6/year), and the need to use a distinct IP for the 
hostname if you can't support Server Name Identification.  

One is real: making sure you don't screw up on installing and rolling the 
certificate.

Both #2 and #3 have the same cost.


But TLS offers a huge advantage:  Proxies abound, and HTTP proxies even moreso. 
 The result is there are an amazing number of network devices which think they 
are smarter than the traffic, but well, they aren't.  E.g. half of the in-path 
HTTP caches cache data incorrectly.  Cellphone networks now experience image 
transcoding, etc.

If you want to avoid the headaches caused by these too-smart-for-their-own-good 
middleboxes, you have to use TLS on port 443, its just about the only port and 
protocol thats unmolested by the network.


For client authentication, TLS is a pain.  But it depends on context: if its 
new program to server, TLS client authentication is no worse than ANY other 
authentication mechanism, as you still have the exchange/pairing problem no 
matter what.  If its User to Server, its an utter abominable failure.

_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

Reply via email to