Re: WebSocket2

Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> Mon, 03 October 2016 19:29 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 A7F8D1294DB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7ohnSeciqx7a for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:29:06 -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 663641294DA for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1br8r8-00028e-G4 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2016 19:24:54 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 19:24:54 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1br8r8-00028e-G4@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi>) id 1br8r6-00027v-W2 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2016 19:24:53 +0000
Received: from smtpvgate.fmi.fi ([193.166.223.36]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi>) id 1br8r4-0005TF-Uj for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2016 19:24:52 +0000
Received: from torkku.fmi.fi (torkku.fmi.fi [193.166.211.55]) (envelope-from hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi) by smtpVgate.fmi.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8/smtpgate-20160114/smtpVgate) with ESMTP id u93JOK9i002705 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:24:20 +0300
Received: from shell.siilo.fmi.fi by torkku.fmi.fi with ESMTP id u93JOK3j029006 ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:24:20 +0300
Received: from shell.siilo.fmi.fi ([127.0.0.1]) by shell.siilo.fmi.fi with ESMTP id u93JOKpS008589 ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:24:20 +0300
Received: by shell.siilo.fmi.fi id u93JOJc7008588; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:24:19 +0300
Message-Id: <201610031924.u93JOJc7008588@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
In-Reply-To: <CAG-EYCgEs1oSdLeLVwd12ECaL=+3pzytuy89xFWvvKCEY8fi4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG-EYChPJpAzoEuNwY3cNz503d0FRbNnDx_9AsNsZyfb5nmN0g@mail.gmail.com> <20161002080030.5F328160CC@welho-filter4.welho.com> <20161002101548.GA9450@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <201610021110.u92BAWpi019029@shell.siilo.fmi.fi> <20161002124346.GB9450@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <201610021340.u92DeBBL029907@shell.siilo.fmi.fi> <20161002171905.GA10108@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <201610030440.u934e3kL031002@shell.siilo.fmi.fi> <CAG-EYCgEs1oSdLeLVwd12ECaL=+3pzytuy89xFWvvKCEY8fi4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:24:19 +0300 (EEST)
Sender: hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi
From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
CC: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version ME+ 2.5 PLalpha41]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Filter: smtpVgate.fmi.fi: 3 received headers rewritten with id 20161003/12758/01
X-Filter: smtpVgate.fmi.fi: ID 12758/01, 1 parts scanned for known viruses
X-Filter: torkku: ID 3138/01, 1 parts scanned for known viruses
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (smtpVgate.fmi.fi [193.166.223.36]); Mon, 03 Oct 2016 22:24:21 +0300 (EEST)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=193.166.223.36; envelope-from=hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi; helo=smtpVgate.fmi.fi
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.182, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.638, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1br8r4-0005TF-Uj 33bad48877a8d5580f7e13b3092218cc
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WebSocket2
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/201610031924.u93JOJc7008588@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32454
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>

Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>om>: (Mon Oct  3 19:39:34 2016)
> About Proxies:
> ~
> I assumed the concern was with forward / reverse proxies like NGINX
> forwarding http/2 to http.
> 
> Afaik HTTP/2 browser only allow using TLS, so a HTTP transparent proxy will
> not be able to "proxy" anything unless the reverse proxy serves a MITM
> certificate.  I do not think this is a common enough use case.

You can avoid complications of forward proxy if you define 
WebSocket2 only for wss: -scheme (which implies TLS).

On case of ws: -scheme request of HTTP/2 is 
interpreted by forward proxy.  Forward proxy 
uses :scheme, and :authority to determine what 
host and port to connect and which protocol to 
use.

( If browsers use HTTP/2 only for https connections,
  then ws: means HTTP/1.1 for Websockect protocol 
  negation I guess. )

I do not know if any browser is using HTTP/2
for connection to configured proxy. I guess
that they use HTTP/1.1 on here. Is there
HTTP/2 forward proxies either? (‡)

( Some browsers can use TLS on connection
  to configured proxy. )

Anyway these parts which process HTTP/2 frames
must understand that DATA -frames are not
HTTP request / response body. Instead they
behave same way than with :method = CONNECT
(and no :scheme or :path).

Situation what I was looking was


    +---------------------------+
    | Web browser or other      |
    | WebSockect client         |
    +---------------------------+
                 ⇓
                 ⇓
    +---------------------------+
    | forward proxy configure   |     ( client uses CONNECT
    | on client                 |       tunnel if encypted scheme )
    +---------------------------+
                 ⇓
                 ⇓
    +---------------------------+
    | reverse proxy for         |   ( may include TLS offloading,
    | :authority                |     if encryption is used )
    +---------------------------+
                 ⇓
                 ⇓
    +---------------------------+
    | origin server             |
    |                           |
    +---------------------------+


I think that is is common network
architecture.

I'm ignoring transparent proxies
and MITM of TLS here.

/ Kari Hurtta



(‡) nghttp2 as forward proxy
    needs http/1.1 proxy which it
    uses for proxy functionality

    nginx seems mention only
    reverse proxy.