Re: Structured request headers deployment issues

Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> Thu, 18 June 2020 11:38 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 675BE3A09A1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 04:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yoav-ws.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 YuokeurpGSit for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 04:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (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 652853A0959 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 04:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jlspb-000767-St for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:35:44 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:35:43 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jlspb-000767-St@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <yoav@yoav.ws>) id 1jlspa-00075M-Hr for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:35:42 +0000
Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <yoav@yoav.ws>) id 1jlspY-0004rB-FS for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:35:42 +0000
Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id u25so3291208lfm.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 04:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yoav-ws.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PO0m/+hnB2HoevadGrvE/k2MoXw4y9ly8Dmn/ei588k=; b=Fii61OxFBfMQknuZQG2Wjb53tqptr7mlQpRew/seYPxjDq8LgA9eQPviifgBC+5H/w m3SGvHsfJDkq8zhAgehY0cpe5oUr7kmiTqxUYgNRSLb2koTuozC1mjKCJq+JSp10B5W1 40WNbNLzVJ30dk117xpRNfm0cvyPTSurTTvdf9cchcFon5OfVWlvXFR/vT4o6Btrbj0Y 0JYKuNqPPUBzh0Vwvdol9vw+2TutUlUBIlTfau5W31qnJpLcFdnAO7lCZ0zw7FPAsVUN LCze/AtqBSnn72WRk1RNpTS9YZE+H9Jy7HYvn5GLeMiqNCk3jfkj0ySQ/DiHkFAbLksd Xn4g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PO0m/+hnB2HoevadGrvE/k2MoXw4y9ly8Dmn/ei588k=; b=KFky81clTtzpJvS+Iu1ajIU/obcB068YbNNqjZLLOklgyFuvjiGRv6nDUlYZrjHwa1 Je7fQOVlstUeGHv/tWoq2V3y8BsHW2Mzr+ZzfpXuV+pOjIPJsGoH08mp2c2faf/VOKpQ HJ4zG95BRmRuy7Odb2TqYZWJHtQs/HY/SgtsM/ftK+pOcpWT1XNMrjLmcXU8q8tYTUaC 0XSsJ+Npjp4FApp6wbLdeiYD840PyHq2z8xkGpjb3Ac9N2kAlKnboOZXpJkR2KMM4mwc 1cxkDRxM1WW8SEHqY4iMmu/4tu+ymfYeO2Zm9QyGfS3xZLP7Mjd8tB+8eJxJnGtc4/RW CMpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531KMhXvfgxe/w2HSdB6Iv0yX5+eaTcNo97GVXh4YAEH2UrlQrpI IfB91CrWZl71gSkKVFHNPADnv7GwF75X9TTBldsc6A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJytTiwud68TJGbJzkqrzdDgOfgaZAwiYRm32Ghp1icaRLnwRioVx4uKyhyJCDYS+/JxFDULqfKZv2h4gl7R4Vc=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5a5e:: with SMTP id r30mr2171482lfn.30.1592480127574; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 04:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACj=BEiT7GnKeS_2wFK8jL0jUFtFYoX-wvXnSsPO4nYJ5P=2bQ@mail.gmail.com> <65202eea-3f19-ba6b-50e9-6cd73d87bbea@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <65202eea-3f19-ba6b-50e9-6cd73d87bbea@gmx.de>
From: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:35:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CACj=BEh439+v5qR9v5OXQ0UpXMmMjJ48SKy16QDRSYdTQEXn+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@gmail.com>, Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000050f5fa05a85a2cb3"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::12a; envelope-from=yoav@yoav.ws; helo=mail-lf1-x12a.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1jlspY-0004rB-FS 743294b2a7f6f39a3f5be5dd443dff2b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Structured request headers deployment issues
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CACj=BEh439+v5qR9v5OXQ0UpXMmMjJ48SKy16QDRSYdTQEXn+A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37791
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>

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:59 PM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:

> On 16.06.2020 00:15, Yoav Weiss wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Chromium M84 (which Chrome equivalent is now in Beta) has User-Agent
> > Client Hints enabled by default, which is using Structured Headers.
> >
> > As a result of that, we found multiple sites
> > <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1091285> which
> > seem to have a somewhat allergic reaction to the presence of certain
> > characters (that are part of the SH format) in request values.
> > While each site in question is different (in what appears to be coming
> > from different stacks), we've seen sites that reject requests with
> > quotes, question marks or equals signs in them.
> > It's still early, so it's hard to know how widespread the issue is, but
> > we seem to be adding sites to the list at a faster pace than the pace of
> > removing fixed ones from it.
> >
> > So, I wanted to give this group a heads-up on that front, and maybe get
> > folks' opinions regarding possible things we could do on that front,
> > other than outreach and waiting for said sites to fix themselves.
> > ...
>
> Thanks for the heads up.
>
> It would be a really bad outcome if that meant that we can't define new
> request header fields using certain delimiters in their values.
>
> That said, the latest change on the ticket appears to be from Monday, so
> maybe the situation is not as bad as you feared?
>

Maybe. We'll see soon enough :)


>
> Best regards, Julian
>