Re: Activity Identifiers - Draft Submission

Scott Perham <scott@polystream.com> Thu, 23 May 2019 19:56 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 E6A73120124 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 12:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=polystream-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 op90IGlDriMQ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 12:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (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 D842E120043 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2019 12:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1hTtnS-0000yZ-UO for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 23 May 2019 19:54:38 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 19:54:38 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1hTtnS-0000yZ-UO@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4c]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <scott@polystream.com>) id 1hTtnP-0000xm-3W for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 23 May 2019 19:54:35 +0000
Received: from mail-wm1-x336.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::336]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <scott@polystream.com>) id 1hTtnK-0005sY-50 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 23 May 2019 19:54:34 +0000
Received: by mail-wm1-x336.google.com with SMTP id c77so7079999wmd.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 23 May 2019 12:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=polystream-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=BDX1zzeG1itGdCBq4fugcDjYDRabFp8oNfZZnAyeMyE=; b=Yfn3n2HjLFhT397EmPe4aGAYDEEyGyb9QgmbVORoKchEwhqYqiKZ1YovGV5QsAW7Re lYFfv5K5AzTSryE/l3nCqkS+m4XWKW7kAD9A0h9+1PL46UT80Q2tAYfo/ntnjGAET81C PrIhhzKqetOaDU+V23Fa7U4Cz2fu25/rtuGOdTtY95buW+4KF2NtUUwjU3gdWIZitVMv cRkR4OqiM06R98FeDrZoSzP6poWhHtEnvSst+klqIXBUmIGTjQMUJwebUod5hG326f6v cxmL1PHAdSDfA1g9Yok7xvRXAg133IBqPlL3ZpcJ5zY3oEj3OA9B/Nj5ULgrbgsue0iQ vJFw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=BDX1zzeG1itGdCBq4fugcDjYDRabFp8oNfZZnAyeMyE=; b=N6PnuAkGR0HjHowWv9o2AoIMnH1np0A4yMSTxdCwbuBkCieari9gc8iyjRM1eKWcrg h5Qu+5TDica3BOTQWgeQvm8S36fGhpkOm4PYQ4dc4t5p9fnzgLU/xgtKY1TQq19bBaPJ eQKH6shNgVD42s8aR0mU1qXjRyg9Eh/YlftLoArnETJWfvx0AIBJ9AJwengpisNrmg5z hbPa3sOorwoF0uNfLjSioKhrPawprGU5HFN/wqPiF79r9Cz0dbD3SgIb63EQO8WUREro YywD1e+f+LQEDa09gLzWEoKYV7ObVwjTlXa41YkIpfFP2sfV7i75tga5bLUM92Ls4EFe 1TYw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVvVw+dJ/6u9qU3vKhIsQKSwdMz9Ew9I+6KuR3neTTefMQDDnet JQZj0ZXbOqwjZP+a5CWX11+Liunx3CdPJQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyPATtLG7fjWf/gL1+AlopkRx0e1sn/fc22uc7xgJvOzNIgLJUdHlPXvygHdVtbMcWOYaQDaA==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:f31a:: with SMTP id q26mr12525281wmq.137.1558641248523; Thu, 23 May 2019 12:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.222] (cpc115936-epso6-2-0-cust280.6-3.cable.virginm.net. [82.14.145.25]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l8sm129962wrw.56.2019.05.23.12.54.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 May 2019 12:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Scott Perham <scott@polystream.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16E227)
In-Reply-To: <20190523192054.F12DBBA3F@welho-filter3.welho.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 20:54:06 +0100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <24309C93-3734-443D-9719-AF962CE5E106@polystream.com>
References: <58a2eb4e74ae647f31673c8fc6e1c821@mail.gmail.com> <20190523192054.F12DBBA3F@welho-filter3.welho.com>
To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Received-SPF: none client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::336; envelope-from=scott@polystream.com; helo=mail-wm1-x336.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1hTtnK-0005sY-50 20a4df67c77b000a36e7ab3dfca2c79c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Activity Identifiers - Draft Submission
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/24309C93-3734-443D-9719-AF962CE5E106@polystream.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36676
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>

In a sense - in that it is randomly generated and is quite often used to identify uniqueness in a request (although also often used indirectly in a common use case of finding a specific request in logs, for example). The value would also be returned to the caller (this is also very common even when the caller didn’t send the value first for practical uses like support tickets, etc) and the same value would be used in _all_ requests in that chain. 

So, Client -> Service A -> Service B (and back again) would all contain the same Activity Id.

For RESTful service implementers, this is one of the most common patterns to help with root cause analysis, idempotent behaviour and asynchronous message correlation and is reimplemented and redefined in each use case.

Just two simple examples using widely known services would be Azure requests (client-request-id) and AWS requests (x-amzn-RequestId).

The purpose is to standardise this approach for HTTP service implementers as it’s become increasingly more common for client requests to result in additional requests “behind the scenes”, sometimes asynchronously and requiring correlation.

There are obviously some privacy concerns if the value originated from a client that was programmed to encode sensitive information into the value without the users consent, but I think that the recommendation may be to enforce UUIDs to ensure this is can’t happen.

I’m slowing learning the depth the draft should have been to begin with 😊 

Thanks,
Scott

> On 23 May 2019, at 20:20, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> wrote:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-activity-identifiers/?include_text=1
> 
>> It is very common that implementers of HTTP severs require the ability
>> to associate an identifier to an HTTP request and or response, this can
>> be for a number of reasons which could include checking for duplicate
>> requests,
> 
> Is Activity-Id supposed to be nonce ? Different value on every request?
> 
> / Kari Hurtta
> 
> 
>