[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Gopher TLS support in curl



Greetings.

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 18:11:18 +0100 John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> wrote:
> There is a lot that TLS could make possible; in fact, we could get 
> virtual hosting without having to bake it into the Gopher protocol 
> thanks to SNI, and it makes sense to add this kind of protection 
> to the modern Internet.

Virtual Hosting is a misdesign of the  web. It made it big, but removed 
the view on other protocols and bifurcated into wrong design decisions, 
not  using the  OS features  for protection.  See the  ugliness of  web 
sessions for what I mean.                                               

> My only concern is that running TLS over port 70 will bifurcate 
> Gopherspace.  A given host will have to choose to either support 
> the legacy clients or the new ones, and can't do both on the same 
> IP & hostname.  Would we still have time to pop it over to some 
> other port, say 770 or 7070 or something, before this gets 
> established?

Geomyidae uses  a simple  probing, which can  be easily  implemented in 
every server.                                                           

	if (recv(sock, &byte0, 1, MSG_PEEK) < )
		return 1;

	if (byte0 == 0x16) {
		do_tls();
	}

All servers not  wanting to implement TLS should do  this too, but then 
do  an explict  close of  the connection.  Some hosting  providers have 
really  ugly  packet filtering  not  giving  any response  and  natural 
connection closing. The  Internet has become a mess because  of the web 
and the cloud.                                                          

A separate port  will lead to a bifurcated gopher,  because there is no 
support in  gopher menus. Extending  gopher menus leads to  less legacy 
support, which is what makes gopher so much fun.                        

The connection overhead is not high for TLS probing.


Sincerely,

Christoph Lohmann

Please activate Javascript to see the full signature.


Reply to: