Re: last call Feedback for Opportunistic Security for HTTP (Experimental)

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 30 September 2016 07:20 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 CB27012B041 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.237
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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=-2.316, 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 ZIh5nYt-V30Q for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:20:05 -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 0D4B61200DF for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bps2s-00061c-LA for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 07:15:46 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 07:15:46 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bps2s-00061c-LA@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1bps2g-0005zj-NK for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 07:15:34 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1bps2V-0005hq-Pt for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 07:15:32 +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 57C9222E256; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 03:14:59 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3226\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20160929044906.92CE511067@welho-filter1.welho.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:14:56 +1000
Cc: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <43F54E22-38AB-4834-B2F9-04D5AA693DEA@mnot.net>
References: <9AFBC7FA-1845-4590-A1FB-243DF1147629@mnot.net> <20160929044906.92CE511067@welho-filter1.welho.com>
To: Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3226)
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=-8.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.351, 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: maggie.w3.org 1bps2V-0005hq-Pt 4005ffd246ef0d8f9dd61912271c6098
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: last call Feedback for Opportunistic Security for HTTP (Experimental)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/43F54E22-38AB-4834-B2F9-04D5AA693DEA@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32429
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>

Good point, I'll try to clarify.

Cheers,


> On 29 Sep. 2016, at 2:49 pm, Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> wrote:
> 
>> Early cut here, feedback welcome:
>>  http://httpwg.org/http-extensions/opsec.html
> 
> 
> ( very quick read )
> 
> http://httpwg.org/http-extensions/opsec.html#rfc.section.2.1
> 
> | However, it is possible that the server might become confused about whether requests’ URLs have 
> | a HTTP or HTTPS scheme, for various reasons; see Section 5.4. To assure that the alternative 
> | service has opted into serving HTTP URLs over TLS, clients MUST check the “http-opportunistic” 
> | well-known URI defined in Section 3 before directing HTTP requests to it.
> 
> and then
> 
> 5.4 Confusion Regarding Request Scheme
> http://httpwg.org/http-extensions/opsec.html#confuse
> 
> and
> 
> 3. The “http-opportunistic” well-known URI
> http://httpwg.org/http-extensions/opsec.html#well-known
> 
> 
> and either
> 
> 2.2 Interaction with “https” URIs
> http://httpwg.org/http-extensions/opsec.html#rfc.section.2.2
> 
> | Because of the risk of server confusion about individual requests’ schemes (see Section 5.4), 
> | clients MUST NOT mix “https” and “http” requests on the same connection unless the 
> | http-opportunistic response’s origin object Section 3 has a “mixed-scheme” member whose value 
> | is “true”.
> 
> 
> does not make clear that this “mixed-scheme” check must be done for http-opportunistic resource
> returned by chosen alternative service.
> 
> 
> After all it is chosen alternative service which can be confused about scheme.
> 
> 
> 2.1 Alternative Server Opt-In
> http://httpwg.org/http-extensions/opsec.html#rfc.section.2.1
> 
> there is
> 
> | The chosen alternative service returns the same representation as the origin did for the 
> | http-opportunistic resource.
> 
> but that only apply when determining  “reasonable assurances”.
> 
> 
> Or have I missed something?
> 
> / Kari Hurtta
> 

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