IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a connection

Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org> Thu, 02 June 2016 01:25 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 8C17512D144 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 18:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.346
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.346 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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=gmail.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 udODmIZ0bTW9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 18:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDF6212B01D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 18:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1b8HJR-0001ww-QU for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 01:20:41 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 01:20:41 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1b8HJR-0001ww-QU@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <nygren@gmail.com>) id 1b8HJM-0001w6-MK for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 01:20:36 +0000
Received: from mail-io0-f177.google.com ([209.85.223.177]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <nygren@gmail.com>) id 1b8HJL-0005iV-1d for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 01:20:36 +0000
Received: by mail-io0-f177.google.com with SMTP id p194so33749653iod.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 18:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=DVKqhVnbudYlQx2o2qyeQiTKGXr1L5xv/quKoSg7eb0=; b=hZtrRcyFhQr+ntSIfQoSVEG+NYU+Zpna3WTE9X7F9qzXCKj/J9biovtLHEegqQpaHn Q2l+8hAN3H4oz5tGir/5mJW/z5syVAmuLiSMKJdRE7dZQO3QrW0Z0R81TOHvXdG8paEB 2G+nA3M/jU4Pqaz/JPqtMcI2ClBVL4ANEWK9UA4lkFltVsvXtH+CO+AmF/akicsk774H JEHIo9HS53Z9OvIsCpLnBpxVtA/qPuxpuZTpdIQIDU48XyO/JC0EU696H5GIp8mwoDaY OMGx4gruBAFlupXO0xOC2gQeH0jq/455QtIMz0CmGZxQkFA6f8/e3RAsT/uDb33WmUmz WHqg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=DVKqhVnbudYlQx2o2qyeQiTKGXr1L5xv/quKoSg7eb0=; b=M+SIju3oDcBVEZO8fjtvEmjeXfi5yCNuiARBWYOHp7XX49k3H0h5prxNLIH/3cIdYW llElLW8T+mdnHrhEGZvAmcYyjAXKmjWCeIjtFT5pfGPEH/CV+EtS8brLY3iuU4FCkKal owmuvOQxvNLcwrRVOf32kHPPOSx9ELeoMsjX5djtHk3m4I8+qYXQl+capsLSmxA9XgRP WGatM0ZRDb0KQgSPErw3jsXqsIannRBgc/iUGfwzy1Sezt9GEhwkc5N4beXIMyWIX13e qOYOvZNi9a4XAiWzq6VfRKhNGlbOwFzwQxNAbU0nx0Volq9RPrdz/QpM/f7wzCjQfXVt X8ww==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tL1NZ1lTfiaZ8GB14NQ6CoHUyPcr6cyTxI4DlcXFjJzG6maxIAJbQpGZIPz0c/ou414HEGu9NUV6Mt56w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.164.224 with SMTP id d93mr614265ioj.80.1464830409133; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 18:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: nygren@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.146.134 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 18:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20CDDE51-2B0F-4A27-831D-CE630588B98C@mnot.net>
References: <CAKC-DJivd-h_H-oOznjTN8=so2zQOhbwuWFkD9hpgvLTqs-WnA@mail.gmail.com> <D5D8F908-27FB-4C81-8CAE-AD4B50939F05@mnot.net> <CAKC-DJhRX1Ac212_A-+h9ygDYidgxtK9RAHhWZP892uM9OEUgA@mail.gmail.com> <6F9226AA-7545-48FB-9409-10731E3BB020@mnot.net> <CABkgnnX_TGkVjhxiBR-hcLMx0dW40Q8ioak0B6wX6M2-M_S=3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJiHCVBneawU-zvnJAEbvbdUvLHJbTy5A+RNgijo3YBKnQ@mail.gmail.com> <20CDDE51-2B0F-4A27-831D-CE630588B98C@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 21:20:09 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: imDvDO6PE-v1h0yEKFVkL9D5i0o
Message-ID: <CAKC-DJhbzCeBL44tE0Lw+X1J1eMgPm6VguALno1rgHr4U=UhgQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1141c93a315c1d0534416846"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.223.177; envelope-from=nygren@gmail.com; helo=mail-io0-f177.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.666, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1b8HJL-0005iV-1d 048b4e325da3eadbd7a10ca83b93fa01
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: constraining scheme (http vs https) on a connection
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAKC-DJhbzCeBL44tE0Lw+X1J1eMgPm6VguALno1rgHr4U=UhgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31688
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>

Yes, what Martin suggests makes total sense.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Does Martin's suggestion of a flag in the .well-known file work for you?
>
> Cheers,
>
> > On 2 Jun 2016, at 1:18 AM, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org> wrote:
> >
> > If it helps, this came up as an important corner-case during
> implementation / detailed-design of a server-side implementation.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Martin Thomson <
> martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is reasonable.  A boolean `mixed-scheme` member that has to be
> > true seems appropriate.  It's cheap enough to warrant doing.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email