Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt

Adam Rice <ricea@google.com> Thu, 21 August 2014 04:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 A7CA11A6F81 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.047
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Dbat-tIhMN-7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EE381A6FDC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XKKL3-0003x6-Gf for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 04:51:05 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 04:51:05 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XKKL3-0003x6-Gf@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ricea@google.com>) id 1XKKKb-0003sn-8j for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 04:50:37 +0000
Received: from mail-vc0-f180.google.com ([209.85.220.180]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ricea@google.com>) id 1XKKKV-00052G-1L for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 04:50:36 +0000
Received: by mail-vc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id ij19so10269997vcb.11 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=g56uu0F361Ce7A+wm5dGq+AntdX2+r8O8H4PVWqSwt0=; b=oFmnj3vsnp9fwwpf/PNmegc6mSbiwOR7LwIsi9Zz/D3wHt+xx5A9WeBVfcITpv71o/ 7kJ5cG027B6a3njD4G+s/l9126VfdlmSPGspdZKqTD65/KGRJyzV9m39OfsMX5N53ca/ Em7V7/w7iOb+/yEBpbL44I+liTjCOf3FcFDpubmA0XvPiIHNLoWKm0fipvxKS9h1BSQN X1nupcJl8jcOKhBz9R1q+BZ3a7BkEuTkoJFUzQiAlzXOKlZ5D7p6n2+Lw6v84hwE/CNg zbOiZhjZ/BaVnuUQ9WEUMXLn40fYtXXavc/CykzOO2WkfC1/oFMmGHd/cxPkS18+aQoh lS6Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=g56uu0F361Ce7A+wm5dGq+AntdX2+r8O8H4PVWqSwt0=; b=Impl3lvo5cdSa2IQJE5rZjxLBOaheAqu7U8F+NnDL3I2AKhmWHbqZ3kkfFDX/7UImN 3H66P024T6PxaZvoxv1MCny1C3uGQFgqnCYjaTvg1JbMtpPJ+IabdV3YNDiA1rVNfTbt +950ATDkG3OE1B2MrYBa3GzpVwZTfCVkbmR+uZQ4BGPKYMbfRdxkzoegCzev9ol+8PWs Bi/Apc4hfJTZzgflrFCBsY8KMmyjEYQanMoLUa104OnKdQMHqmsiFoHjfUC5IGE2vSGj jQmn/0f5JAvV7L6AU9WCYnMz1/2l5VDb+c2n7/cgyOzHSjVNpe13bVX+5yok71VI7LcA MfjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnOQmmosXYgWSM2dbhniBAKQ+Slkb7Gvxlc3una6PqNrSaUSZUqheG8FzAhqoMljwNM3GgA
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.74.195 with SMTP id v3mr40197585vcj.23.1408596603410; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.0.135 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6F9EE13B-1791-4010-8953-3172A57AC172@mnot.net>
References: <20140818233839.23251.81316.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <858FBAA8-F0D5-43A0-A621-7D504AB3327A@mnot.net> <CAH_y2NEekpgDNO+OsDELarcSi3nn72gHb98L9R66TntcD9bUiQ@mail.gmail.com> <3859D490-6B6E-4C7D-A3AF-9F1CF6F69045@mnot.net> <CAH_y2NGivMoS_WSudKKM4A=Jnr6bKneJZ5zuTmWrQm=XESYdYw@mail.gmail.com> <6F9EE13B-1791-4010-8953-3172A57AC172@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:50:03 +0900
Message-ID: <CAHixhFqbw00FrGSrCRS1rK_HqEj8osRXtXpj+DtYmU=tqFyBkQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Rice <ricea@google.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01634bf02dc06e05011c744f"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.220.180; envelope-from=ricea@google.com; helo=mail-vc0-f180.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XKKKV-00052G-1L 0197d931a48bc4d1b8a48c9f69714d53
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAHixhFqbw00FrGSrCRS1rK_HqEj8osRXtXpj+DtYmU=tqFyBkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26684
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>

As a client, why would I add a header to my request that is going to cause
the proxy to block it? What is the benefit to the user?


On 20 August 2014 10:12, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> On 20 Aug 2014, at 11:09 am, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > thanks for those links.
> >
> > I think the document itself needs to be a bit stronger on the intended
> usage of the header.  Currently it reads that this header field can be sent
> by a client and that it can be ignored by the proxy.
>
> That's the intent.
>
> > Perhaps it should be little bit stronger and say that a proxy MAY
> (SHOULD?) consider this header when deciding to create a tunnel or not.
>
> We can't retroactively require proxies to pay attention to a header; it's
> up to them. This header is merely enabling those proxies who choose to act
> upon the header.
>
> (Yes, that corresponds to MAY, but we try to avoid overusing it, else our
> documents get filled with MAYs. It's not really a conformance requirement,
> it's just a statement.)
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> >
> > cheers
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 20 August 2014 10:45, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> > Greg,
> >
> > See:
> >
> https://httpwg.github.io/wg-materials/ietf90/IETF90_draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol.pdf
> >
> https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/gh-pages/ietf90/minutes.md#draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> > On 20 Aug 2014, at 10:40 am, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Mark,
> > >
> > > Is there a specific use-case motivating this additional header?   ie
> are there situations that a proxy can use this to do more than just
> log/debug a tunnel?
> > >
> > > I'm certainly not opposed to having the additional information that
> this header provides, but I'd like to know what advantage there is for a
> client to include the header.  If there is none, then it is not likely to
> be sent.
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
> > > http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that
> scales
> > > http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
> >
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
> > http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that
> scales
> > http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>