Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 19 July 2013 16:57 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 126CD21E80BB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.348
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.629, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 1EOgptbktFtC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4129F21F9A78 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V0Dxu-0007uS-RJ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:55:34 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:55:34 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V0Dxu-0007uS-RJ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1V0Dxl-0007r9-28 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:55:25 +0000
Received: from caiajhbdcbhh.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.177] helo=homiemail-a77.g.dreamhost.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1V0Dxg-0007fc-CM for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:55:25 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a77.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a77.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1556294065 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=RZIj+uvN3s5jl2l7za41 tx0CCqU=; b=OpTyGjsrqHWmvFktyW7H6kJExfNE2hAWG3NEh8rEG2wZOV0kkHiu yXLgdSn3BNBhoWg43RA/yt+4hP0GN/Nf5gVnaKePK59UyQwiAABnm5I1rpPp17yp DGZfStVZfB3hrchUs4D49GGVO5OO6u9MkAjkUfZwmHPJIxoXbNnGgo8=
Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com (mail-we0-f174.google.com [74.125.82.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a77.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B822E9405E for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id q58so4275748wes.33 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Vai6QJaYMP/2D6hdA/p5sqKK9MFKRZqWdfrFaxU0hUY=; b=VZAWDdgQ1Vpm7slehHW9O0lyhMG75RBIK0R50rsLGM8nB5MXwdp2qbcUqy6/SVNK2O iX8lAj8Hhd6UqVgv3HAI5dziXChq/W08MnvTfb9RLqONxGfz89IneGHjYd5BxCYFkN9D /fmgtvHpHDGIGpPgRgMrgdCHpwdzgbZPRBDXH6Qc61QxD6zaOSUrmuAHWoZqP+KWi4d4 cU45Z+MrrCNU58CSYb1B35dHK1Di3h6kVZmMrIL4hrqu2hBCua4FPyVJacVWK7poCE8x 8MBzIVVHyvd2uW/t2HSZhqCp9rNvV/X1YA6ZwAson1g1lEBvPr1HSMAtY2FlVUMtzawk g8Ag==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.48.116 with SMTP id k20mr13074376wjn.23.1374252896834; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.217.38.138 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1772.1373629495@critter.freebsd.dk>
References: <CA+qvzFPUpcm6kUtJx+rTw8Dpp4Gtx4Bmr3XPDhjNsjchUfN9_w@mail.gmail.com> <51DE1E32.9010801@treenet.co.nz> <CAP+FsNdcYhA=V5Z+zbt70b5e7WmcmXgjG5M9L3vfXeXfTwmRnw@mail.gmail.com> <51DE327C.7010901@treenet.co.nz> <CABkgnnXeqD6wh0dcJ1Dz=4PLAJNkDeGcCuzMr9ATd_7xS7nbGQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbcUkLf3CTAB4jwicnsiKWLGVY6=hX0k=0256SR_gcVt9A@mail.gmail.com> <092D65A8-8CB7-419D-B6A4-77CAE40A0026@gmail.com> <3835.1373612286@critter.freebsd.dk> <CD9E163F-1225-4DA8-9982-8BDBD16B1051@mnot.net> <1772.1373629495@critter.freebsd.dk>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:54:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOiRTw9CMVw88eW1G95t0hx0ZfGitHw2Co4bV-fN2dnv7g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Sam Pullara <spullara@gmail.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: none client-ip=208.97.132.177; envelope-from=nico@cryptonector.com; helo=homiemail-a77.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.449, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1V0Dxg-0007fc-CM ba55062648e46139cd6ae4bb4322cdec
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAK3OfOiRTw9CMVw88eW1G95t0hx0ZfGitHw2Co4bV-fN2dnv7g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18847
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 Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> I have given a concrete example multiple times, it's very simple:

So you think all session state should always be stored on the server, period?

It's hard to disagree, but I was under the impression that many
services need to be stateless (storing session state in encrypted
cookies) for various reasons.

The assumption being made by the WG that per-connection compression
state is no biggie bothers me.  I think it's a huge deal, but it does
go hand in hand with an assumption that all session state is to be
stored by the server, which makes sense to me.

Is there consensus for such assumptions?

Nico
--