Re: Op-sec simplification

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 01 November 2016 05:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 E675B129A6C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5XrtKLYi5i-K for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 087C2129515 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c1S2N-0001jU-GT for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 05:55:07 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 05:55:07 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c1S2N-0001jU-GT@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1c1S2H-0008OH-W2 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 05:55:02 +0000
Received: from mail-qk0-f175.google.com ([209.85.220.175]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1c1S2B-0002xQ-Nt for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 05:54:56 +0000
Received: by mail-qk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id z190so187295979qkc.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Q8DoYQnC5UwI03QDyCgRd7t7wNcy59upVLuqOgg4/6o=; b=dWRfxoxlTVbaNcrWm+py+VHKfCedZBhaPBjUtiQ3i1QdteyPBnbgYra1fExlP0v0dV BfHQ2QpxGjqbVKWxiATgc4j/Bw9JU6h9FMsX0v2AmbmDRhH+OLhLc7TMUz8sdXfKv8tE tG43NsA5dWNOym1cjOICvjeDce6Z2WkCu4aqtJEmLTudZ6VveGg5POVJFWWwvSEoevjm Vm/OxlrzBS6TtMnYeCvT5Olu0YVFz4QEVFVfL64bDEeIOGAi+yHTdeJpdJKZmE1lWVZO qBYdFDSn2x3Gh8x+3s8kvI3/X8RpOwByP/LsOFlBkJ76uhh0KnwcOL33D+Du2yISEgqW pKKg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Q8DoYQnC5UwI03QDyCgRd7t7wNcy59upVLuqOgg4/6o=; b=UqIW8UZK3s0Y+CFI5/HPdc7yQo5ulBOfYLnmcvDlVpAbZQFjBLZ2dHGf1I3jA3NWUi xNV5iTZpw3usGvLYKagNJakPfO6HFl7hRPGUx8LpDOCgu7p8PDi+P4e3ZHWq2SO0A7yE 0fy+NPpf2k3Pheii8kzGvTrvt2CE5jRoH9Wg+jDVkImtFLU4jfOuh36FR848sDYU49kR L1CcI3jz+JKMB6QOlMLYhbJY47mm88wWyK0VlFnt+ud8Vv+W/hu9uTNCKmYzUjyLGzQg X6ATw9B6F49u2ULhlVKRWouWU5ac9PkFjhYce7lsX+cykkc02YmdqTXgUM8gRdhhUXJz F9kQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdFJ3MLbeqjbVxj5YLW9DAhpqyFrwlcPCxMC6YjIwbvmVvuVEiJJpau6+ZCOXWLioXgzijaJr3/yJZ8wA==
X-Received: by 10.55.12.2 with SMTP id 2mr23578292qkm.68.1477979669681; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.85.7 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201611010525.uA15P8V9009381@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
References: <20161031053239.E9C6D12F5D@welho-filter3.welho.com> <842E817E-77E4-45E0-B5E3-D45F8D7AFA15@mnot.net> <CABkgnnVm2roXz5BiQeh5m2a_zcsfC3rFZ2pnoQ_m9k6b3K=58w@mail.gmail.com> <4CE68DCC-BE25-42DE-9247-4195103797EF@mnot.net> <201611010525.uA15P8V9009381@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:54:29 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWDqrn6Oqf62mPBqkp+0t9TvX1rO_Ge27LJW8EKmVjukA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.220.175; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f175.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1c1S2B-0002xQ-Nt 3334603dd1e7f53c2e5a994562daa203
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Op-sec simplification
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnWDqrn6Oqf62mPBqkp+0t9TvX1rO_Ge27LJW8EKmVjukA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32780
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>

On 1 November 2016 at 16:25, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> wrote:
> That may be good idea. (This spec requires scheme and http/1.1 spec does not
> allow scheme to be used. )

I have tried to capture this information in a PR:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/257

> |   | TBD1  | Scheme Not Allowed            | Section 2.2 |

We can probably avoid doing that on the basis that we have 421.

> |   | TBD2  | Scheme Required               | Section 2.1 |

The case for this seems weak.  You have to have a resource that is
only available on the cleartext version of the site, and you have to
use opp-sec, and the client has to be very silly.  I would prefer to
use 404 here.  That is, assume that the client asked for a secure
resource (https://example.com/http-only) which doesn't exist; rather
than asking for the unsecured resource (http://example.com/http-only)
which might.