Re: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 25 February 2016 21:44 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 B00D51B35CF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:44:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, 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 wyKz7o65x9qD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:44:19 -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 A5CEC1B35D3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:44:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aZ3dE-0007NW-Vb for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:39:33 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:39:32 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aZ3dE-0007NW-Vb@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 <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1aZ3dA-0007Md-3E for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:39:28 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1aZ3d7-0002vJ-Uh for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:39:27 +0000
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([93.217.75.200]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Mhej1-1aKwzE0Fs3-00Mtel; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 22:38:55 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
References: <687A1C0F-067F-4487-A217-7399560FA675@mnot.net> <5E0627D1-45E2-48D5-9A0A-B50B6BA0B644@mnot.net> <56CB4940.8030102@greenbytes.de> <56CEF729.4010800@gmx.de> <A555243D-8A68-487C-B7D0-447AD382835A@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <56CF7470.8080306@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 22:38:56 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A555243D-8A68-487C-B7D0-447AD382835A@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Ey0CSkyHLuZaqx9o72Pk7MYU1Vf32rCsJ0rby+Sfth04MxItTXF 7vpDbQYX0upGIPVzelTfxtlrftJfDeQkIkpgxZAb4ePV6iuBhteWPRXtcLuTWnUTamhAapp 0BoNXfAfT6hJbg4NpEyuNE+tWfH/DERlQJH5PBYO+U562XgMEVt2pqevEm1+yTzB9kb1EAw QjUblIFgT2Tti2yqR5Fgg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:FpiHZPtBp18=:GdpousNGx5BFCwIUDXY6Y1 4mqLi1SQXHtPpjfks2YH1qsvD82PPnuU3JrqGmhVuRp4ToYENpYH5FnRhMW+5g+JhF6hjZY6D yU98f4tPEpN67y6jM1ceg814qIgObXxPx999v7uyOuOs9p7T8GWC2Cn9Kzg9sjGpOGU5FFyGW NQX4slqGP1SLygDtaymIknLJ/DqpyH3TuzQLWbaBQBRZ4pm8qollYq0M4thv3MjwzbAsXp66b to3cZ51wLT8nw34hCCzAwKQXNsFOxmu3JSGYplyTnBcacmvFwTq6xmgD6p3KndnJsSAChujYl vC2F/C1Xm1ENSWvJjIjfAIlHCOT3cPW0+bBnkZhrPwPim+BAW8oFYryA6nBI7NVm+klKO4fyE hCL79/HtrR2h60L4XHsFJr9FKOyMZ794TmF+UuvRY1UsZsPVNyRfTIXvQhLVeEBMwej7/G8YL orlmpfBE82PzBo2iyQZFD8QEy5fSJ8Mj6aSpv0sfY2JX7HdVrRcAhKD7bf1j+rFe2K09JqycQ hI6ogoFBBbo7yIbSjikkkI9dzocWv6QnZ6i3Hmg3wYuuF6nb0SqSE7glACr9QmeYwqorzQsNE wjpnkD2Cu1Uoza5aO3GNg5/XzFnC8ueaMfsxTo9iwQ2lop/pjxRWKWXxDm6RT4VIlCGaiuo0Q tG/4khQM0YK+2VduhEXCWJA1LNWH92ggtvYl2T1JRJKZRTLt/C939soNk9khxXlmNp7fHWLkc Sx8AKf00KcSHt3yFk6AwiOLl8K4MNb+CU0+9xBE5poRM47Sx3+j2K4NTT413WJDb+htonnXfP JF49z7e
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.20; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.425, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1aZ3d7-0002vJ-Uh 190df06b1ac8cd2d4e71df1750c27557
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/56CF7470.8080306@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31096
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 2016-02-25 22:30, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Section 2., paragraph 11:
>>> OLD:
>>>
>>>     Alt-Svc MAY occur in any HTTP response message, regardless of the
>>>     status code.  Note that recipients of Alt-Svc are free to ignore the
>>>     header field (and indeed need to in some situations; see Sections 2.1
>>>     and 6).
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>>
>>>     Alt-Svc MAY occur in any HTTP response message, regardless of the
>>>     status code.  Note that recipients of Alt-Svc MAY ignore the header
>>>     field (and are required to in some situations; see Sections 2.1 and
>>>     6).
>>
>> This should be reverted; the actual requirements are in Sections 2.1 and 6, and we should not have them in multiple places.
>
> Agreed.

200.

>>> Section 4., paragraph 2:
>>> OLD:
>>>
>>>     The ALTSVC frame is a non-critical extension to HTTP/2.  Endpoints
>>>     that do not support this frame can safely ignore it.
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>>
>>>     The ALTSVC frame is a non-critical extension to HTTP/2.  Endpoints
>>>     that do not support this frame MAY ignore it.
>>
>> This is IMHO misleading as it is true for any unknown frame. It just follows from <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7540.html#rfc.section.4.1>:
>>
>> "Implementations MUST ignore and discard any frame that has a type that is unknown."
>
> Would adding "as per [RFC7540], Section 4.1" help?

"Endpoints that do not support this frame *will* ignore it (as per thee 
extensibility rules defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC7540])."

?

>>> Section 4., paragraph 13:
>>> OLD:
>>>
>>>     The ALTSVC frame is intended for receipt by clients; a server that
>>>     receives an ALTSVC frame can safely ignore it.
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>>
>>>     The ALTSVC frame is intended for receipt by clients.  A device acting
>>>     as a server MUST ignore it.
>>
>> I'm ok with this one (but wanted to highlight the new normative requirement).
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
>>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Best regards, Julian