IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Feedback on draft-thomson-httpbis-catch

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 11 March 2014 08:50 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24ABD1A0381 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, 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 oFsx6oehIBtu for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD1A1A0369 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1WNIMh-00045g-Ow for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:48:47 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:48:47 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1WNIMh-00045g-Ow@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 1WNIMW-00044w-DX for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:48:36 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1WNIMU-0003CA-Fa for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:48:35 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.117] ([84.187.63.218]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MAgvb-1WTe9c0rox-00BqPF; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:48:07 +0100
Message-ID: <531ECDC4.1020204@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:48:04 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <CABkgnnU1RMHN8sGsRc_KSw3+EutZnrrb-N=WpzP5wuqQ-ECe7Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWDu301rXkX2u-AhptkSEr9AJb3LGJ3wfvVbhD0Oy4H6g@mail.gmail.com> <531EBF44.9080902@gmx.de> <CABkgnnVk4GJ++LPbPRKYw4tYmr=k9ugA3SqQLNGLBOxVO+u+0g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVk4GJ++LPbPRKYw4tYmr=k9ugA3SqQLNGLBOxVO+u+0g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:bMpc0XiavGsOiM5Fa/K+XgKuauxYErDqQOvYwgBmGuG5sesUS8C 9H3Q6Wbo6gmnKcoLLJapCr36FO9fKeUovT1TBD7g7jzEPuDyCcWnvIEcopIDe9JEp3ObAfc K3gz32ilTkPBTe5R2WrEGHKm5/992fF/5Gx8jYRNXDYe9Zr0CMSm13wxUhXGM3rW71PTzDg zlrj8Dc/SWKioST1EIfCQ==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.21; 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=-3.431, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1WNIMU-0003CA-Fa 42fd0ce875c6e35a2c0b79acff78438a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Feedback on draft-thomson-httpbis-catch
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/531ECDC4.1020204@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/22621
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 2014-03-11 09:12, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Thanks Julian,
>
> https://github.com/martinthomson/drafts/commit/bbc206889f1946c6f4f020152bc0f0d4c956e328
>
> On 11 March 2014 08:46, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>     HTTP/2 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-http2] forbids the use of renegotiation,
>>>     except for at the very beginning of a connection.  This makes
>>>     addressing some client authentication use cases difficult.
>>
>> Not in the referenced version of the draft, right?
>
> True, but there doesn't seem to be much point in pursuing this draft
> if HTTP/2 doesn't make that statement :)

Yup - just clarifying...

>>> 2. Client Certificate Challenge
>>>
>>>     parameters other than "realm".  Other parameters MAY be used to
>>>     provide a client with information it can use to select an appropriate
>>>     certificate.  Unknown parameters MUST be ignored.
>>
>>
>> Do we need to be more specific? Is there something that could be
>> standardized here?
>
> I thought about that.  Maybe someone else can do the definition.  For
> instance, see Henry's use case and my response there.

Sounds good.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email