Re: Sec-Scheme request header?
Mike West <mkwst@google.com> Wed, 13 April 2016 08:01 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 50DAC12D8E8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.016
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.016 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, 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=google.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 gRAPw7ajwd-u for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:01:08 -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 AEAD512D6E8 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aqFe5-0004Gj-6X for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:55:29 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:55:29 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aqFe5-0004Gj-6X@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 <mkwst@google.com>) id 1aqFe1-0004FH-Ga for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:55:25 +0000
Received: from mail-lf0-f45.google.com ([209.85.215.45]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mkwst@google.com>) id 1aqFdz-0007so-2X for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:55:24 +0000
Received: by mail-lf0-f45.google.com with SMTP id j11so58151565lfb.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IAJs8CdpHql9sWd7hnQnig9QVDH5CzH9CEG1GMHiyN4=; b=cTC2e0XAKFv69vYJO6PYm4URVbBGS2WXGDo3KJ0fL7g9JBwneiGd2LpWLRkBsf32D1 iBideS2VAO0dnwJUFMelPh4+/p2eOKZbGUGUoMGhGmrn+sf5XFeJe9H6FRyvX+h05dAO mbMSF5j+fpqB1ZeLFL1lChOauN8Oa3Sxo1efgHDAylBSg4IGiyu03uJvugolIzc4XiEf jwj5dVyW7yC/c+FaGNTR3fvwKRw/DuNVQvenbqdbKw9f7iu1eIUVHMSImtGOx+t1YyDd sL4ZBOOn3pG+uAC9I3id4fJPaJigRIcifeWef9iUwdL6eXYnUA/I43DQpUcOy7ryeFCh 0aQw==
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=IAJs8CdpHql9sWd7hnQnig9QVDH5CzH9CEG1GMHiyN4=; b=XYdvW1xAwbcrsDQnNsf4aWsHZxTesMPT7xRLQmNmdONttdES4f6Y11WiEQ6oqGl4hJ HLz9EDFciPBwe4KUAO0rjEhMMOu+lwM6R4IOjNGWtYOzEH10PN4go7EzXiBpXC5r/HuS F6Nl6UXArmteJLJNIwbgwjSeH2lYLzGP9GxNgD0AQ6VcVofQJ0Fx0D2N8cIXI2HCvwCu 6eLHRWzLS/r1dxvHZBFBHNcgtYIu//YtqXIgLNS15BmuGdYLg4peO4v71bxGQiZBK6wW EjhIlAHiuTdxBlQPRUxPJZpVi/yLeVj5fF+WeKnPN5KQ9XUG10ovdDhczblu9wE+m6m0 CsTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXABFiWx7BrVIplEspEQTmTIyG02fT4hIcz7434Lu/hEKJpjxsrJaUxzxHl8Etrinzen/zhUUOjQQ5ZIjyx
X-Received: by 10.112.162.131 with SMTP id ya3mr3355884lbb.11.1460534095765; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.49.18 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ED1304AC-126B-486B-A58D-81D24C8F5C06@mnot.net>
References: <ED1304AC-126B-486B-A58D-81D24C8F5C06@mnot.net>
From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:54:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=f=499HWYurEsTodjrJr6rR7DBkcFiVwmJGE0ogYFPAaQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0112c86ef6560b0530591757"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.215.45; envelope-from=mkwst@google.com; helo=mail-lf0-f45.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=2.337, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1aqFdz-0007so-2X c40dff0177acce3c70079f5e43682d3f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Sec-Scheme request header?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAKXHy=f=499HWYurEsTodjrJr6rR7DBkcFiVwmJGE0ogYFPAaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31434
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 Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > At the WG meeting in B-A, I tangentially wondered aloud about whether we > should define a header in the form: > > Sec-Scheme: https > > Because it's prefixed with `Sec-`, browsers won't allow its modification > (e.g., in XHR), so its value is relatively trustworthy from browser clients. > > Because it's a header, rather than a pseudo-header (like :scheme), it's > "end to end" -- it gets exposed to the application (e.g., through PHP, CGI, > whatever) via standard APIs. As such, it's much more realistic to consume. > > What do people think -- would such a thing be useful? > Could you explain the use-case? Ctrl+F in https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/gh-pages/ietf95/minutes.md came up empty, so context would be helpful. :) -mike
- Sec-Scheme request header? Mark Nottingham
- Re: Sec-Scheme request header? Mike West
- Re: Sec-Scheme request header? Patrick McManus
- Re: Sec-Scheme request header? Martin Thomson
- Re: Sec-Scheme request header? Mark Nottingham
- Re: Sec-Scheme request header? Mike West
- Re: Sec-Scheme request header? Mark Nottingham
- Re: Sec-Scheme request header? Mike West
- Re: Sec-Scheme request header? Amos Jeffries