IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: H2 Implementation Debug State URI

Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk> Tue, 09 August 2016 09:55 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 0451412D685 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 02:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.168
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, 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=lukasa-co-uk.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 sSq5dIe4CL3h for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 02:55:32 -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 B8F2212D675 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 02:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bX3gk-0002DX-FE for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 09:51:10 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 09:51:10 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bX3gk-0002DX-FE@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <cory@lukasa.co.uk>) id 1bX3gc-0002Cm-Uo for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 09:51:02 +0000
Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <cory@lukasa.co.uk>) id 1bX3gZ-0000wP-Th for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 09:51:02 +0000
Received: by mail-wm0-f47.google.com with SMTP id q128so22493455wma.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 02:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lukasa-co-uk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=6ZWl1pYzuNapIRLJ7x7CvisvP3hD05HZCD3SdYx2nNI=; b=cmrgvIkgMR1y/YlKEMnFo1Y+TZM9+JOlbFHnQarg7cUCrv7EQQKZPvzslEyfW2ipJm oEAUzSwEyv5+bTd3fjxCrlc01OxsM7HRvz9vstJAPVQeqQGzF7yhMFL0400HV5eHWM6A AzPI2J12XOE5Kr1DCvG4onRS/H2G1Af6Oj1bRTsUdW/OWMPZYUTJe1TpjhltrSOTHxP9 LkUh0cCf1eVPrzPPnoZcOYorE5PDAKy0Xrzwz0WPc+FSoSIz5eGaAdVEr3x28E6aMbJ6 TS0c3zeUv0+Og192aXKVuRsroqMQfq6CW9EEgmqOqHOj0m9BF1OSIPMaWodtSV8NwLBh mpgQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=6ZWl1pYzuNapIRLJ7x7CvisvP3hD05HZCD3SdYx2nNI=; b=M50pwICFSPiePQcGF4zS/oAXBkPeBxHWB1c4F005PkZnW/4/8vjtSaU6OwIcI8qAiA dyH8LLGE6Qu/ZQMAKkoaM8Ndej/w6HhDkSfO1qJ4oq579c73eAJw0CSaGHUnhEoJNfqZ WjjdahJOpGLuXZjK5J1bb4zTb7rZ6WonhOUqeedPfzg7SISoCQs92GJ80i2IVnP0aoe1 ayLaJkVk9A0yV/FM6fOGw97efQYmEGfd827RnTm1x1i8IUTfotjFr5iNwB1HztbpEnFb LvSMcpDmmTA8K1FeUuwyyn5qd/nom7SCtOX/+wTWuYbkgRQ2mBDURSB6wCnhiB0VHvKc /Vyg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoousNFUISGgwD0LCWgfIGBB1f7f74yRABl1IKqdDj2Yu6KAWel0Me9rXte0WeEI+4aA==
X-Received: by 10.28.48.202 with SMTP id w193mr21153360wmw.54.1470736232667; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 02:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (240.89.6.51.dyn.plus.net. [51.6.89.240]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id vv2sm25772078wjc.29.2016.08.09.02.50.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Aug 2016 02:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3207.2\))
From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <5221cf24-e49d-9748-d13c-abe02406beac@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 10:50:30 +0100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4CC78A66-5617-46D0-AC91-6D2FB7E39332@lukasa.co.uk>
References: <63CCB07A-0204-4CF7-B598-9497D7112021@lukasa.co.uk> <4314.1470384112@critter.freebsd.dk> <B4171FD2-B154-4950-BF0C-4B5A4714367F@lukasa.co.uk> <57A4B820.9060300@measurement-factory.com> <44E9A3E7-C2CC-46EE-B198-A2E85273B032@lukasa.co.uk> <5221cf24-e49d-9748-d13c-abe02406beac@measurement-factory.com>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3207.2)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.47; envelope-from=cory@lukasa.co.uk; helo=mail-wm0-f47.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.817, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bX3gZ-0000wP-Th 6a791af91c5031845bc2d946debb6426
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: H2 Implementation Debug State URI
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4CC78A66-5617-46D0-AC91-6D2FB7E39332@lukasa.co.uk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32241
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 8 Aug 2016, at 20:45, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> wrote:
> 
> On 08/06/2016 10:33 AM, Cory Benfield wrote:
> 
>> This was discussed, but was discarded in part because many proxies do not respect that header. 
> 
> I do not understand that reasoning: Surely those proxies that add
> support for the new feature (debugging URI) can be required to support
> Max-Forwards, at least in the context of that feature. Is it really
> better to add Max-Forwards-2 or require response body adaptations?

The problem is not those proxies that add support for the feature: the problem is those that *don’t*. For those that don’t add support, they blindly forward the request on, running the risk of information leakage and invalid/incorrect responses.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email