Re: Mixed schemes

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 21 November 2016 03:18 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 865E4129429 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 19:18:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 rUpA5BMLHeIM for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 19:18:05 -0800 (PST)
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 802C8129401 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 19:18:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c8f41-0003Hz-US for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 03:14:37 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 03:14:37 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c8f41-0003Hz-US@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1c8f3w-0003Gs-2G for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 03:14:32 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1c8f3q-0002zr-2B for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 03:14:26 +0000
Received: from [192.168.3.104] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C3B6D22E255; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 22:14:02 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWHO3ffdeviYjCEzqao43cUMWGmjmNGxM=OHg2G4SXGwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:14:00 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <ED7EED77-4CDA-453B-938E-F98B558FED0F@mnot.net>
References: <CABkgnnWHO3ffdeviYjCEzqao43cUMWGmjmNGxM=OHg2G4SXGwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.466, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 1c8f3q-0002zr-2B 2095f88477b0974e99cd08619e1b41ac
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Mixed schemes
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/ED7EED77-4CDA-453B-938E-F98B558FED0F@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32939
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>

Personally -- SGTM (including #2).


> On 21 Nov. 2016, at 1:29 pm, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Patrick (perhaps indirectly) suggested that we can harness a Firefox bug here:
> 
>  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/270
> 
> That is, rather than mention that coalescing between https and http
> might happen, forbid it instead.
> 
> I'm fairly sure that this will address the concerns Erik had.  Maybe
> too effectively; objections like this would be good to hear.
> 
> I didn't add any text here about coalescing two http:// origins.  I
> don't want to close this issue until we resolve that too.  Should we:
> 
> 1. allow coalescing of two http:// origins by default
> 2. forbid coalescing of two http:// origins without an explicit signal
> 
> My preference is for option 2.
> 
> Let's be perfectly clear, there's no inherent protocol reason why we
> can't coalesce.  But this stems from an (over)abundance of caution.
> We can develop explicit opt-in signals regarding coalescing if it came
> to that ... #include <ORIGIN frame discussions>.
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/