Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-h2-websockets-06: (with COMMENT)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 06 June 2018 15:04 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 45BF7130F4C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 d4MIsEYQj0-J for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B48B3130F50 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1fQZr7-0007CM-E9 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2018 14:56:09 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 14:56:09 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1fQZr7-0007CM-E9@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ekr@rtfm.com>) id 1fQZqu-0007Ak-AK for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2018 14:55:56 +0000
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ekr@rtfm.com>) id 1fQZqq-0004ET-JE for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2018 14:55:55 +0000
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A81130F9C; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 07:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, mnot@mnot.net, draft-ietf-httpbis-h2-websockets@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.81.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Message-ID: <152829693185.6240.15691240901102465461.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 07:55:31 -0700
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=3.150, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1fQZqq-0004ET-JE 43979ed970185f62bf3ccbd7467154ab
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-h2-websockets-06: (with COMMENT)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/152829693185.6240.15691240901102465461.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/35491
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-h2-websockets-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-h2-websockets/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rich version of this review at:
https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D5180



COMMENTS
S 4.
>         indicating the desired protocol to be spoken on the tunnel created
>         by CONNECT.  The pseudo-header is single valued and contains a
>         value from the HTTP Upgrade Token Registry defined by [RFC7230].
>   
>      o  On requests bearing the :protocol pseudo-header, the :scheme and
>         :path pseudo-header fields MUST be included.

You should say what the path means.


S 4.
>   
>      o  On requests bearing the :protocol pseudo-header, the :authority
>         pseudo-header field is interpreted according to Section 8.1.2.3 of
>         [RFC7540] instead of Section 8.3 of [RFC7540].  In particular the
>         server MUST NOT make a new TCP connection to the host and port
>         indicated by the :authority.

I was sort of able to make sense of this, but it's kind of confusing.
Perhaps you could say a word about it.




S 5.
>      the GET-based request in [RFC6455] and is used to process the
>      WebSockets opening handshake.
>   
>      The scheme of the Target URI [RFC7230] MUST be "https" for "wss"
>      schemed WebSockets and "http" for "ws" schemed WebSockets.  The
>      websocket URI is still used for proxy autoconfiguration.

Just to be clear, you are saying ":scheme" must be https or http?