This really only helps on the first connection attempt.  Browsers
already pre-warm connections to subresource hosts.

On 19 February 2016 at 16:38, Dave Garrett <[email protected]> wrote:
> I just had an idea. There is significant doubt of how useful semi-static DHE 
> 0RTT would be due to the difficulty of distributing the configs out-of-bound. 
> I don't dispute this; I merely dispute that no capability is better than 
> minimal, in this realm. There is another way that they could be helpful, 
> however.
>
> Take a typical HTTP page and a client with no prior knowledge. (could be 
> applicable to other applications, but the TLS WG does have a charter to take 
> special note of HTTP latency; subresources' lack of HTTPS often is a stated 
> reason for a site's lack of HTTPS overall) There will be a 1RTT cost without 
> having a pre-cached way to do 0RTT, and then after that there will be a 1RTT 
> cost for *every* subresource on a different server. To do HTTPS for the 
> servers of 3rd party scripts, ads, user-posted images/video embeds, etc., 
> each of those servers will need to be connected to by the client with TLS and 
> no prior knowledge, meaning a 1RTT cost. This could be significantly 
> optimized by creating a new HTTP extension that allows servers to enumerate 
> the domains on a page, cache all those domains' semi-static DHE config, and 
> push them to each client in their first flight returning the primary 
> resource. This would allow all subresources to be fetched by the client with 
> a 0RTT cost, and just a s
 in
>  gle 1RTT cost for the primary resource. Servers could simply refresh their 
> cache of their subresources' semi-static DHE configs on a daily basis. A 
> stale config can be sent to a client and it can still fallback to 1RTT, 
> though. Clients would not need to have any prior knowledge in order to 
> significantly benefit from 0RTT in this scenario. TLS 1.3 would need to have 
> some way of facilitating this scenario in order to devise a way to do this 
> sort of thing in HTTP (or another general protocol with subresources).
>
> The general point I'm trying to convey here is that we can come up with ways 
> to use this to improve latency noticeably, if given the underlying 
> capability. We don't know how effectively it can be used until we try.
>
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

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

Reply via email to