Re: Header addition with HTTP 2.0

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Tue, 31 March 2015 00:35 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A6D61A1B45 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 ZYfH-fZ2k0C9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:35:47 -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 CAA081A1BA5 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Yck71-0000Ze-Ay for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 00:32:59 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 00:32:59 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Yck71-0000Ze-Ay@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1Yck6q-0000YZ-CY for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 00:32:48 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com ([209.85.214.172]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1Yck6p-0007k6-KN for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 00:32:48 +0000
Received: by obbgh1 with SMTP id gh1so2985540obb.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=b7sxZ0cWVOYyGYbkBaGznHCtBOSdmwkBbDZsfSV1nYk=; b=wVNk9yXrAXE6hqe7fMDvYzuxjaaAMqRACJzCe78pd9glUaMGXorqUdOauuWB3kohP/ jpBZ0Axtp1eUC/s5pkqWH+UD88VxcRn9FILYX5Mnkw1F8kppsdQFvaJZXdhzcj380Lmw 5l7coPxBNA4wv3Dj6iVO1SbP/m86SHqQUtqdEt4gjdqfFYjT549BulmRR9tlTaPDpjfg jUSOrzzNcshsnNzRXwgj7YuAj12S8wdGXDdkhP0JMJZyfUd98UM+6Fra5XlH0EsUmZy5 k6KTB2zctvvKnvmixaEYPZBzjENdBa/tdu7zLnS2iJwwdpkWmvtQZSdf5IU8B9DiOMC3 bbcw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.241.197 with SMTP id wk5mr637377obc.0.1427761941363; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.19.130 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKwtvnD5k6YJxvCMr-=qtaWUo+ygoH-Eb4u-1koOKxGPvN1A9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKwtvnAtuF-X3pgbgLe7VAdnMd4+Yy1EeZLaHgyXXTnZRBgFZw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNftsP2XqP7HNQMrETN6vWjqA05ShSX2jvC7oV1ff5Po-w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKwtvnD5k6YJxvCMr-=qtaWUo+ygoH-Eb4u-1koOKxGPvN1A9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:32:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcKdU5Av88JjGWmRsy+5uXCHhO3C+=70KCJxdtaDAduqw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Vimala Tadepalli <vimla.c@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c1f5ee56c22c05128abbf4"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.172; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f172.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.237, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Yck6p-0007k6-KN 2897a8409a5e1a594464bf448eccc83d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Header addition with HTTP 2.0
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNcKdU5Av88JjGWmRsy+5uXCHhO3C+=70KCJxdtaDAduqw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29099
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>

Most HTTP2 implementations will likely be over TLS, so you'll find it
difficult to insert anything.
If you have plaintext access, you can do anything, and yes, using that
operation would make the most sense.

imho, such behavior should be avoided, if possible.
-=R

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Vimala Tadepalli <vimla.c@gmail.com> wrote:

> I should be using "Literal Header Field never Indexed" to add a new
> header?
> Thanks
> Vimala
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> HTTP2 is semantically the same.
>> It'd depend on the implementation of the firewall, rather than anything
>> else.
>>
>> -=R
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Vimala Tadepalli <vimla.c@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I work on a firewall, where we need to add a header to the client
>>> request going to the server.
>>>
>>> Topology is
>>>
>>> Client -------> Firewall -------> Servers
>>>
>>> Ex: Suppose a request is going to youtube, a new header "
>>> X-YouTube-Edu-Filter" has to be added to the request.
>>>
>>> In HTTP 1.0/1.1, this is feasible
>>> I tried with SPDY as well and Server did accept the request and
>>> redirected accordingly.
>>>
>>> In HTTP 2.0, can i do this?
>>> If a header is added at firewall, client and server dynamic tables might
>>> go out of sync. Will it cause any issues?
>>>
>>> Any suggestion is greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Vimala
>>>
>>>
>>
>