[apps-discuss] HTTP wasn't designed for this (was: [Fwd: Gen-ART LC review of draft-loreto-http-bidirectional-05.txt])

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sun, 05 December 2010 09:29 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D833A6A56 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Dec 2010 01:29:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.932
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.416, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XvJ18lKjC3Ur for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Dec 2010 01:29:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87E693A69B9 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Dec 2010 01:29:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.5.Alpha0/8.14.5.Alpha0) with ESMTP id oB59UYvR009138 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 5 Dec 2010 01:30:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1291541444; x=1291627844; bh=L574tvWsJc6veSbdksHy6VL8XoPJ/4zTe7GcYT0vu2s=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=qKCW8fWDd9zHlUGdcVvlFgN3+q/FQI7b9uEa5sihk79hLGfmWSVYks5RUNUMVha95 X2LfQIXg/77hjOIW/noz70Z0x4NMgIywYMQ1rj583p581XdKHO0s8cppnoaJ0fKGa5 WVJPAOtNi3XuTChFj++2NE8SfAmlyEPKnn4l7hIM=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1291541444; x=1291627844; bh=L574tvWsJc6veSbdksHy6VL8XoPJ/4zTe7GcYT0vu2s=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=KiwQKn3CW6k2OgeJJlgoxTuEgAHahJ+8t7TJIcpfNKiEXi45IvCcKElUJL7Xtsrv/ 11iylwnK1TDlsKTEgxb/E4cmN/D/OCnj6gB6axg1AuRc5ouwv5pe8o71zwehr2iMM1 +i8kziMCg5eXpqPNTFiDUybHDrcEs9t5kQgO93FU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=X7ifxR5UgJoRFmomVoFqIpWPWO0QNUwlmV8RtzLSfpmOFIZ5tNevsn1FNJJXveLlO n5fUhjgB02IniRNtb0wpc/FIF6HrqWmo28iT4PCw5C678llDo3iUJOSl7qdUKbTL9VU z1T1Aqs7ckaH6p3Vbxp6+nQRqlY6t6ZNqWykN34=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20101204230117.0b7c3c80@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 01:30:15 -0800
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4CF9B9EC.20409@gmail.com>
References: <4CF9B9EC.20409@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Discuss Apps <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Subject: [apps-discuss] HTTP wasn't designed for this (was: [Fwd: Gen-ART LC review of draft-loreto-http-bidirectional-05.txt])
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 09:29:26 -0000

Hi Brain,

This comment is not about the draft.

At 19:47 03-12-10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>I thought I should forward my Gen-ART review here, since it
>contains an opinion statement. See attachment.

Quoting the opinion statement and adding another draft to the mix:

>This is real example of protocol abuse. HTTP wasn't designed for 
>this and doesn't
>do this properly. The draft is non-judgmental, and that might be a mistake.

draft-iab-ip-model-evolution-02 "attempts to document the properties 
of the IP layer as they are seen by upper-layer protocols and 
applications, and especially properties which were (and at times 
still are) incorrectly perceived to exist, as well as properties that 
would cause problems if changed."

"With the advent of technologies such as Network Address Translators 
(NATs) and firewalls", ports 80 and 443 are frequently 
abused.  Saying that "HTTP wasn't designed to do this" would probably 
fall into deaf ears.  After all, TCP/IP over HTTP (RFC 3093) has been 
around for over ten years.

>Personally, if I was in the IESG, I'd be considering a "holding my 
>nose" ABSTAIN
>ballot unless some text stating that the methods described are 
>really bad ideas
>was added.

:-)

Regards,
-sm