Re: Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-alias-proxy-status-05: (with COMMENT)
Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> Wed, 25 October 2023 19:21 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=ietf.org@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 2026AC180DC0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.057
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.057 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=apple.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r0Itfzqx0sni for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CB63C17C53B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1qvjQo-002OSD-FO for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 19:20:42 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 19:20:42 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1qvjQo-002OSD-FO@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <tpauly@apple.com>) id 1qvjQl-002ORB-UB for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 19:20:39 +0000
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-mx-lapp01.apple.com ([17.179.253.22]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <tpauly@apple.com>) id 1qvjQj-003bMQ-0M for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 19:20:39 +0000
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp03.rno.apple.com (rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp03.rno.apple.com [10.225.203.151]) by rn-mailsvcp-mx-lapp01.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.23.20230328 64bit (built Mar 28 2023)) with ESMTPS id <0S3300K4FN23X710@rn-mailsvcp-mx-lapp01.rno.apple.com> for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:20:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Proofpoint-GUID: x-NBHCAx8qg6qJnm4mmo-DHdCi_WkPiw
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: x-NBHCAx8qg6qJnm4mmo-DHdCi_WkPiw
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.619,18.0.980 definitions=2023-10-25_09:2023-10-25,2023-10-25 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=interactive_user_notspam policy=interactive_user score=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2310170001 definitions=main-2310250166
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apple.com; h=from : message-id : content-type : mime-version : subject : date : in-reply-to : cc : to : references; s=20180706; bh=sRMTEOPMydi20l31pljgkeHD6aX4uNDYOY67gxDVZkQ=; b=R0yAbLlbcw3gj86tBt6CNNWrXcQpf+07u5Ook+M1M1UCk1kCFBpRavACgj/phPN2LsUt pzMIShHyNxQQsiqRUA30+5E4UzLXsEQZgtHptXOjwwwlua/lbAgBPPpC1UxPXc7Ez2RQ 9JbBz49Nn0osJC1p62YvgjGMUxQ3sOyW3lwIij3UDy9fDNtSUW5UJTb4DeQ2d/eEOLqJ f97MOYfC41wPkv1FTy9OjoM6euyHlFGS598sFP/CfTU9kwqmwNGacFte1xUVqt2uR70E oyrN1tIakyXKwMk93miCtYZN803oxmirzsyVaFLHZ42QdB3QuQ+m2hwcazHHK7oAzKvI rw==
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com (rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com [17.179.253.14]) by rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp03.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.23.20230328 64bit (built Mar 28 2023)) with ESMTPS id <0S3300M3BN221EB0@rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp03.rno.apple.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from process_milters-daemon.rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com by rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.23.20230328 64bit (built Mar 28 2023)) id <0S3300Q00MYIZ400@rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Va-A:
X-Va-T-CD: fa095092440e15a1948c34b3cd103a88
X-Va-E-CD: 490aa1bd0feb49026aa26560ec5ff588
X-Va-R-CD: 16c91761e31ce866510295b660f4a40d
X-Va-ID: da8d0f89-417e-47f8-9829-17a3c9272c78
X-Va-CD: 0
X-V-A:
X-V-T-CD: fa095092440e15a1948c34b3cd103a88
X-V-E-CD: 490aa1bd0feb49026aa26560ec5ff588
X-V-R-CD: 16c91761e31ce866510295b660f4a40d
X-V-ID: 0144f5a4-702c-4616-a134-a204371e95c1
X-V-CD: 0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.619,18.0.980 definitions=2023-10-25_08:2023-10-25,2023-10-25 signatures=0
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([17.11.124.248]) by rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.23.20230328 64bit (built Mar 28 2023)) with ESMTPSA id <0S33002PPN226Q00@rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Message-id: <49442705-D03F-478D-90AF-C3779868FB7D@apple.com>
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6D04E5AB-D744-4DFD-87F2-F9FACA814B2B"
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.100.2.1.4\))
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:20:16 -0700
In-reply-to: <169814021791.24948.2138250171693436588@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-alias-proxy-status@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
References: <169814021791.24948.2138250171693436588@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.100.2.1.4)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=17.179.253.22; envelope-from=tpauly@apple.com; helo=rn-mailsvcp-mx-lapp01.apple.com
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (address=tpauly@apple.com domain=apple.com), signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1qvjQj-003bMQ-0M be3aabec5b8bc87458dcc27d78b51008
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-alias-proxy-status-05: (with COMMENT)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/49442705-D03F-478D-90AF-C3779868FB7D@apple.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/51534
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: <https://www.w3.org/email/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Hi Éric, Thanks for the review! I’m glad you like the IPv6 =) Some comments inline. Best, Tommy > On Oct 24, 2023, at 2:36 AM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-httpbis-alias-proxy-status-05: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-alias-proxy-status/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-httpbis-alias-proxy-status-05 > > Thank you for the work put into this document. It is well written, concise, and > useful. I love when an I-D uses IPv6 examples ;-) > > Please find below osome non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be > appreciated even if only for my own education). > > Special thanks to Mark Nottingham for the shepherd's detailed write-up > including the WG consensus, ***but it lacks*** the justification of the > intended status. > > Other thanks to Brian Haberman, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my > request), please consider this int-dir review: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-httpbis-alias-proxy-status-05-intdir-telechat-haberman-2023-10-23/ > (and I have read the follow-up discussion) > > I hope that this review helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -éric > # COMMENTS > > ## Use of 'name' > > The text often use the word 'name', while draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis (and of > course RFC 8499) does not use the word 'name' without qualification. I strongly > suggest to stick to the 'approved' DNS terminology. > > Adding draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis or RFC 8499 as informative reference would > be a plus. > > ## Multiple hops example > > Another example with a proxy chain (i.e., multiple names in Proxy-Status:) > would be benefitial. Interesting point! I’ll see if there’s a way to add an example in for that that isn’t too verbose. > > ## Section 2 > > Why is this not a MUST in `The names SHOULD appear in the order in which they > were received in DNS` ? Is the information still useful if not in the order ? > When can the SHOULD not be enforced ? Two thoughts here: - The information could indeed still be useful; the order isn’t really the key piece of information for the client. - This could be a MUST, but it is unenforceable — the client has no way to know one way or the other. I often prefer MUSTs that would cause a failure if it isn’t followed. > > `The proxy MAY send the empty string ("")`, I usually do not like 'negative > signalling', i.e., giving semantics to an absence of signal. There could be too > many false positives. This was not originally something we included, but it was added based on server implementor feedback. > > ## Section 2.1 > > RFC 1035 section 3.1 is not really specifying the set of characters in a DNS > label. And, it is also clear in this RFC that neither comma nor dot are valid > in a label per BNF, please update the reference. The paragraph within that section that I was referencing is this: Although labels can contain any 8 bit values in octets that make up a label, it is strongly recommended that labels follow the preferred syntax described elsewhere in this memo, which is compatible with existing host naming conventions. Name servers and resolvers must compare labels in a case-insensitive manner (i.e., A=a), assuming ASCII with zero parity. Non-alphabetic codes must match exactly. So, I believe this is correct. The feedback we go during development of the draft was clear that labels in CNAMEs could have commas or dots. > > ## Normative references > > Really unsure whether RFC 9298 is normative. I could see this going either way. If anyone has particularly strong feelings, I’d be happy to change this, but this is one of the kinds of proxies this applies to.
- Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-alias-pro… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
- Re: Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-alias… Tommy Pauly