Re: #473, was: p7: forwarding Proxy-*

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 29 July 2013 14:35 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 A7F2521F9AF0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, 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 mad9bKlvTT42 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F5E21F9360 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V3oWw-0007ru-MX for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:34:34 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:34:34 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V3oWw-0007ru-MX@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1V3oWn-0007qo-LS for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:34:25 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1V3oWi-00070b-PD for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:34:25 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.104] ([217.91.35.233]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MFLhE-1UpSWD0VJU-00ENFe for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:33:53 +0200
Message-ID: <51F67D4E.2020308@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:33:50 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <76583F5C-A175-42EA-B0A0-CB5663A5E3AC@mnot.net> <9E71BAB0-0D88-4B6E-B1A1-AA228349E3CA@gbiv.com> <27ED39F0-723C-4358-9A22-4AAEEC1BA912@mnot.net> <37ABC670-148B-4D7A-AE21-6692EFFC122F@gbiv.com> <3257D0DA-F6FA-4E24-919C-C4FB4864F69E@mnot.net> <51F4FB7F.3050807@gmx.de> <D9E38713-A86F-47BE-9124-D4EA88700BD3@mnot.net> <51F66E8D.1090109@gmx.de> <120946A4-C088-41B9-836E-50A59A1D5941@mnot.net> <51F67241.3090004@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <51F67241.3090004@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:4jnYmA3Pyg/6TVBB8BbzDpX6QzTsfjZ5MNuIse/phUSgArxkXxz P6vAYH9NcCjgI6HFsFSl/YKKYhWoWIIChVMTe8UDTESgDVMyA97GdwG1W7eYRj7f61BBZNy LIg/QIwA+IbXqGzlApzk3QF098Xcs8t1zxe3eDm9SNPt3pupjSxe9t1n5UAbD7bCco7Lf+E HWekUmTF5Y7wCdQXFVgpg==
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=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.400, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V3oWi-00070b-PD febf1ce7a6413bfeceba995a4c7043f1
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #473, was: p7: forwarding Proxy-*
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51F67D4E.2020308@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18956
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 2013-07-29 15:46, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2013-07-29 15:39, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 29, 2013, at 3:30 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>;
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-07-29 14:31, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>> The conclusion of the conversation was Roy's statement:
>>>>
>>>>> No, I am just saying that Connection is not required; if it is not
>>>>> included in Connection, then the intention is that it be forwarded
>>>>> until consumed.  OTOH, if it is included in Connection, then it
>>>>> will be consumed or deleted by the immediate recipient.  AFAIK,
>>>>> these fields are not normally included in Connection, but there
>>>>> might be a good reason to if the proxy selection is complicated.
>>>>
>>>> Which seems reasonable and no one has objected. However, p7 still says:
>>>>
>>>>> Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field
>>>>> applies only to the current connection, and intermediaries should
>>>>> not forward it to downstream clients. However, an intermediate
>>>>> proxy might need to obtain its own credentials by requesting them
>>>>> from the downstream client, which in some circumstances will appear
>>>>> as if the proxy is forwarding the Proxy-Authenticate header field.
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity: why does the "SHOULD NOT" show up as "should not"?
>>
>> Cut and paste of the HTML in Safari loses the uppercasing applied by
>> the stylesheet, I think.
>
> If you look at the raw HTML; you'll see it has "SHOULD NOT" (exactly so
> that copy&paste does the expected thing). Bad Safari.
>
>>>> … with similar text for Proxy-Authorization. The "SHOULD NOT
>>>> forward…" requirement is in conflict with the sentiment expressed
>>>> above.
>>>>
>>>> I've changed the target to p7.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> So maybe change
>>>
>>>   "Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field
>>> applies only to the current connection, and intermediaries SHOULD NOT
>>> forward it to downstream clients."
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>   "Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field
>>> applies only to the current connection, and *proxies* SHOULD NOT
>>> forward it to downstream clients."
>>>
>>> This would allow non-proxy intermediaries to forward it.
>>>
>>
>> I think we need to make it a more discretionary thing; e.g.,
>>
>> "Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field usually
>> applies to the current connection, and proxies generally will consume
>> it, rather than forwarding it to downstream clients."
>>
>> With similar changes for Proxy-Authorization.
>>
>> Make sense?
>
> Sounds good.
>
> Best regards, Julian

Proposed patch for Proxy-Authenticate: 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/473/473.diff>

Looking at Proxy-Authorization:

"Unlike Authorization, the Proxy-Authorization header field applies only 
to the next outbound proxy that demanded authentication using the 
Proxy-Authenticate field. When multiple proxies are used in a chain, the 
Proxy-Authorization header field is consumed by the first outbound proxy 
that was expecting to receive credentials. A proxy MAY relay the 
credentials from the client request to the next proxy if that is the 
mechanism by which the proxies cooperatively authenticate a given request."

...which seems to be correct already, right?

Best regards, Julian