IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt

Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> Wed, 10 February 2016 21:36 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135671B301C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:36:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 XPkkiboaL7mX for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:36:32 -0800 (PST)
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 59AD31B301B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:36:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aTcMs-0008R9-G0 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:32:10 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:32:10 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aTcMs-0008R9-G0@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1aTcMl-0008QS-0H for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:32:03 +0000
Received: from mail-bl2on0123.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([65.55.169.123] helo=na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1aTcMh-0003uD-8H for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:32:02 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=37ZKI+3ShchfGrC6sD6TjI4VXCah3uMIdgbcacK5ImE=; b=Nek/rvPUqb+u4JDSc8j2h1x+KtM0Q2JQ+1pmYVFBqZOvyvKg1u0o56wjWi9OJNyE2OdJE6X/1YNuE72wXCS1G8PgRKxiEQGE6fTOv9dJsNM2p1/qRbNwLxhM0xkrI+8y8BwrfXoaYqE+z+U2oIW5zve4dJ1oV3uy5NolTf0kClg=
Received: from CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.163.16.28) by CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.163.16.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.403.16; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:31:26 +0000
Received: from CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.16.28]) by CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.16.28]) with mapi id 15.01.0403.017; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:31:26 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRY7RNrATcPP2h00ilsne4qbLwW58k8zMAgADZVQA=
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:31:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CY1PR03MB1374F3513049DBCB19D36BF287D70@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20160209074851.32332.24065.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20160209182822.C37A959F@welho-filter2.welho.com> <B7164F24-DDA1-4753-8A8B-04809B1965FF@mnot.net> <CABkgnnVfZu5e1fOAOAgaxPR=mRS+xv+oDFN1gHRUFamEk_=VtQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVfZu5e1fOAOAgaxPR=mRS+xv+oDFN1gHRUFamEk_=VtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:c::556]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9f80b97b-43f5-45fc-8218-08d332618842
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY1PR03MB1374; 5:hxIdpuX6mKrwc8FnZum23G4vw7snPCFBzf2Ou5lKNcBc1FU98mxiiVs4CkKs9e2ynoXgBJM/pIgKMq6BNjCsYBNZKH5/RxLPjF0WzQCvIBvG/3HaCtMwA7wFhKMIDkmK8CoHajnOrW5ciWptCXjM5A==; 24:98D4Aa539VLShJCRrqvHZL2HLl6Mqq698ENl193iNTpEUUmw0f2Wf+grwKOgVDhqHmmt3WA7lGJyIBQz2EbDglb7ls9QNKnbp+32nu8t1a0=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR03MB1374;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY1PR03MB1374A9F571E95EFD9A0FA42287D70@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(61426038)(61427038); SRVR:CY1PR03MB1374; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY1PR03MB1374;
x-forefront-prvs: 0848C1A6AA
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(13464003)(24454002)(377454003)(586003)(4326007)(5003600100002)(5001960100002)(3280700002)(102836003)(2906002)(6116002)(86612001)(40100003)(122556002)(10400500002)(76576001)(5005710100001)(1220700001)(11100500001)(86362001)(5008740100001)(189998001)(76176999)(74316001)(77096005)(50986999)(5002640100001)(2900100001)(33656002)(2950100001)(5004730100002)(10290500002)(87936001)(8990500004)(561944003)(54356999)(1096002)(99286002)(93886004)(3660700001)(19580405001)(230783001)(10090500001)(5001770100001)(92566002)(106116001)(19580395003)(3826002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR03MB1374; H:CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 10 Feb 2016 21:31:26.6929 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR03MB1374
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=65.55.169.123; envelope-from=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com; helo=na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.432, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1aTcMh-0003uD-8H b8433a1a1d3a7ce1ec277b1c7724627f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CY1PR03MB1374F3513049DBCB19D36BF287D70@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31071
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>

I agree.  For example, if the proposal of using a .well-known URI to delegate to an Alt-Svc gets traction and becomes an RFC, it could just update Alt-Svc to define that as having assurance as well.

Note that h2c on the same port doesn't need Alt-Svc, since the Upgrade: header from the server is already defined.  So what we're really talking about is h2c *on a different port*.  Honestly, I think if we put it on a different port and publish an Alt-Svc pointing to it, we might as well go direct (i.e. don't Upgrade from HTTP/1.1 on the new connection), which would need a new token anyway.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 12:31 AM
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>; HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>; Julian F. Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt

On 10 February 2016 at 14:31, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> This is difficult to specify; one way we could do it is to specify the way we know here (using HTTPS with a strong cert), and require other ways to update this specification (with an Updates: field on the Standards Track).


This seems reasonable.  If h2c starts to see wider deployment, then a good definition for that that assurance might look like will have to emerge (or alt-svc won't be used there).

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status