Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Sat, 24 July 2021 18:39 UTC

Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 18:36:20 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1m7MVY-0005OD-G5@lyra.w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210617025013.GT11634@kduck.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:35:57 -0700
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B46D7A9A-83D8-49B6-91BC-2450CE482717@gbiv.com>
References: <162387594905.23641.14127507690244359885@ietfa.amsl.com> <C80881FF-1D38-4BD0-A8B0-7A693C05B341@mnot.net> <20210617025013.GT11634@kduck.mit.edu>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=23.83.209.55; envelope-from=fielding@gbiv.com; helo=eastern.birch.relay.mailchannels.net
Subject: Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/B46D7A9A-83D8-49B6-91BC-2450CE482717@gbiv.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list

> On Jun 16, 2021, at 7:50 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 11:44:58AM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Hi Ben,
>> 
>>> On 17 Jun 2021, at 6:39 am, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Thank you for this quite masterfully done mammoth undertaking!  I expect
>>> to ballot Yes pending discussion of one point.
>>> 
>>> I'm looking at the following text in Section 4.3.4 relating to how to
>>> handle certificate validation failures for https:
>>> 
>>>  If the certificate is not valid for the URI's origin server, a user
>>>  agent MUST either notify the user (user agents MAY give the user an
>>>  option to continue with the connection in any case) or terminate the
>>>  connection with a bad certificate error.  [...]
>>> 
>>> Given the discussion up in §3.5 about requirements to "notify" the user
>>> vs requiring "confirmation" from the user, I don't think that just "MUST
>>> notify the user" is sufficient to prevent the user-agent from
>>> continuing, since it is sufficient to just write a log entry as the
>>> means to notify the user.  Is the intent to require confirmation of the
>>> action to continue in the face of such an error (which, again per §3.5
>>> could be a pre-configured confirmation)?  An intent to require
>>> "confirmation" (vs mere "notification") seems consistent with the
>>> subsequent text placing requirements on automated clients and would be
>>> more consistent with my understanding of general IETF consensus for
>>> securing protocols
>> 
>> Good catch. I think that 'notify the user' --> 'obtain confirmation from the user' is the right change here (possibly with a reference to 3.5).
>> 
>> Anyone disagree?
> 
> Not I -- that sounds good to me.
> The parenthetical might want a bit of reworking (or removal?) as a
> follow-up, though.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben

We almost forgot this one.  Done in

 https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/commit/d93cc5f1a5f72e0d45529871fdd2d20395f6dbda

....Roy

Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-se… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbi… Mark Nottingham
Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbi… Benjamin Kaduk
Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbi… Roy T. Fielding
Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbi… Benjamin Kaduk