Re: WGLC p1: proxy handling of a really bad Content-Length

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 07 May 2013 04:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 38F0421F8616 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2013 21:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bVJmia1BTnCR for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2013 21:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1FFF21F85DC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 6 May 2013 21:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UZZlq-0004Yl-L6 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 04:44:58 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 04:44:58 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UZZlq-0004Yl-L6@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UZZlg-0004Xx-LH for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 04:44:48 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UZZlc-000588-Vv for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 04:44:48 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.105.214]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5ED4122E256; Tue, 7 May 2013 00:44:23 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <5180B982.9050003@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 14:44:20 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <53C9DBAB-2816-421A-AD56-C88919FBD6A0@mnot.net>
References: <5180B982.9050003@measurement-factory.com>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.436, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UZZlc-000588-Vv bf33c32f6765751ab862d6145f19473e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WGLC p1: proxy handling of a really bad Content-Length
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/53C9DBAB-2816-421A-AD56-C88919FBD6A0@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17852
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>

Created as <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/482>;.


On 01/05/2013, at 4:43 PM, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>; wrote:

> Hello,
> 
>    When talking about dealing with malformed responses, HTTPbis p1
> Section 3.3.3 says:
> 
>> the proxy MUST discard the received response, send a 502 (Bad
>> Gateway) status code as its downstream response, and then close the
>> connection.
> 
> Which connection MUST the proxy close: upstream or downstream? If you
> guessed downstream because the connection must be closed only _after_
> the 502 downstream response is sent, you guessed wrong :-).
> 
> The proxy MUST close the upstream connection and it may do that
> immediately, without waiting for the 502 response to be sent on the
> downstream connection. This was discussed around 2011/11/28, and I think
> Mark agreed that a fix is needed but the text was never changed.
> 
> Also, the current wording suggests sending "status code" as a response,
> which is not the intent, of course.
> 
> 
> Suggested fix:
> 
>  the proxy MUST close the upstream connection, discard the received
>  response, and send a 502 (Bad Gateway) response downstream.
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Alex.
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/