Re: Editorial Issue: Persisted Settings... when does the client need to return them?

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Sun, 28 April 2013 06:24 UTC

Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:24:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UWL23-0000dx-3E@frink.w3.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAP+FsNdyQSXVRNbGqs_g1rm08Mrhc7haE3azThLU44Css7W3rA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7Rbcyf2FQH50OC1EgTr5+So_4tisVNZKOUBvKDe=fRgMbxA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXc2aw43aXMDM7oXoDcgDs3+03qwYfw6Sobz_tbMh_diA@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbfRdi6eH-AXp57Pa1-m1c_9ZN3Xa+7E2RihdezX24WYpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNdyQSXVRNbGqs_g1rm08Mrhc7haE3azThLU44Css7W3rA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 23:23:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbd-32BnZ2zV5aaOcZDXP6JfTcCFiRhKqoXV2O4roAn0Cw@mail.gmail.com>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c20b44988cb704db65cf98"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.49; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f49.google.com
Subject: Re: Editorial Issue: Persisted Settings... when does the client need to return them?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7Rbd-32BnZ2zV5aaOcZDXP6JfTcCFiRhKqoXV2O4roAn0Cw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list

That's not what I see documented in the draft currently.  Pending update,
perhaps?
On Apr 27, 2013 2:38 PM, "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> The AP couldn't set anything w.r.t settings unless you connect to it
> specifically and it has a cert that your browser trusts, at least assuming
> the model where settings are persisted only for sessions using verified
> certs (like what is done with SPDY today).
> And then the browser (at least Chrome) will forget the setting upon the
> change of network.
> And of course, one could just set a cookie instead of doing SETTINGS, but
> then we announce it everyone, even when not useful. bleh.
>
> We'll talk about it later anyway.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 8:39 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To be honest, the whole persistent settings thing gives me the
>> willies, particularly given that SETTINGS as defined currently are
>> generally specific to individual connections. If I'm on the road and
>> on my phone connected temporarily to a free wifi access point, I don't
>> necessarily want that access point being able to tell my phone to
>> persistently store some piece of data that will never be used anywhere
>> else... Not to mention the inherent privacy concerns...
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Martin Thomson
>> <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Given that persisted settings are at risk, I think that we can defer
>> > addressing this one.
>> >
>> > (I'd say that once is enough and that persisted settings need only be
>> > returned at connection establishment time, but that's not the only
>> > thing we need to address with persistent settings, I think.)
>> >
>> > On 26 April 2013 14:28, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> One bit that's not clear in the current draft...
>> >>
>> >> When the server asks the client to persist a setting, is the client
>> >> required to return that setting in EVERY subsequent SETTINGS frame it
>> >> sends to the server until the setting is cleared or is it only
>> >> required to send the persisted settings once when a new session is
>> >> established (i.e. in the client session header?)
>> >>
>>
>>
>

Editorial Issue: Persisted Settings... when does … James M Snell
Re: Editorial Issue: Persisted Settings... when d… Martin Thomson
Re: Editorial Issue: Persisted Settings... when d… James M Snell
Re: Editorial Issue: Persisted Settings... when d… Roberto Peon
Re: Editorial Issue: Persisted Settings... when d… James M Snell
Re: Editorial Issue: Persisted Settings... when d… William Chan (陈智昌)