IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Wed, 10 June 2015 00:34 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 4F2261A903A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 mNNSpFJtttkf for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:34:25 -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 DF2C01A904C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Z2Tu4-0006lQ-DN for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:30:00 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:30:00 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Z2Tu4-0006lQ-DN@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 <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1Z2Tty-0006kG-6W for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:29:54 +0000
Received: from smtp.qbik.com ([122.56.26.1]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1Z2Ttv-0002iR-IT for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:29:53 +0000
Received: From [192.168.1.146] (unverified [192.168.1.146]) by SMTP Server [192.168.1.3] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v8.3.5 (Build 4794)) with SMTP id <0000363548@smtp.qbik.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:27:32 +1200
From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:27:31 +0000
Message-Id: <em27ac938e-d1de-4caa-ab0b-c70454ae4ab1@bodybag>
In-Reply-To: <557781F4.6070304@treenet.co.nz>
Reply-To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.22344.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=122.56.26.1; envelope-from=adrien@qbik.com; helo=smtp.qbik.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.398, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Z2Ttv-0002iR-IT 0b8480b623430a458a662d4ab8dec7cd
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/em27ac938e-d1de-4caa-ab0b-c70454ae4ab1@bodybag>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29744
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>


------ Original Message ------
From: "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 10/06/2015 12:16:52 p.m.
Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on 
draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

>
>
>Recall the long discussion for March WGLC on this documents -02.
>
>That discussions made it clear that:
>a) this header value was *not* intended to describe the full protocol
>stack - only an undefined number (1..N) protocol(s) at the top of it.
>b) TLS was mandatory - except when it wasn't used. (WTF!)
>c) some values describe whole stacks, some only the leaf protocol.
>
>Consider the (multiple) cases of ALPN "http/1.1" - TLS or not?. Which 
>we
>went over exhaustively earlier.
>
>When a proxy MUST inspect the packets in order to understand what the
>header contains it becomes a waste of bytes. We just go with sniffing.
>Its way simpler.

that's the conclusion I reached also.  Will need to sniff, and ignore / 
strip the ALPN header, certainly won't be making policy decisions on it.

Given that the header is intended for intermediaries it's hard to miss 
the irony in this.

Adrien

>
>
>I stepped out of the discussions on this document when that point 
>became
>clear. If the header *did* describe the whole protocol stack, it would
>be wonderful and I'm back in again trying to add support to Squid.
>Otherwise its just a waste of time for me.
>
>
>Amos
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email