Sec-Scheme request header?
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 13 April 2016 07:55 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 2DF7F12E0F3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.917 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=-0.996, 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 wfr9WxeSI-4W for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:55:56 -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 A24CB12DBA1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aqFa5-0002Cs-Oa for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:51:21 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:51:21 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aqFa5-0002Cs-Oa@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 <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1aqFa1-0002Bn-MR for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:51:17 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1aqFZy-0001lc-9G for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:51:17 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [120.149.194.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF6D222E1F3; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:50:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:50:48 +1000
Message-Id: <ED1304AC-126B-486B-A58D-81D24C8F5C06@mnot.net>
Cc: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
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=-8.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.358, 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: lisa.w3.org 1aqFZy-0001lc-9G ec5ef5923e04bf2ef2f020c5220d8a72
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Sec-Scheme request header?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/ED1304AC-126B-486B-A58D-81D24C8F5C06@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31432
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>
At the WG meeting in B-A, I tangentially wondered aloud about whether we should define a header in the form: Sec-Scheme: https Because it's prefixed with `Sec-`, browsers won't allow its modification (e.g., in XHR), so its value is relatively trustworthy from browser clients. Because it's a header, rather than a pseudo-header (like :scheme), it's "end to end" -- it gets exposed to the application (e.g., through PHP, CGI, whatever) via standard APIs. As such, it's much more realistic to consume. What do people think -- would such a thing be useful? -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- Sec-Scheme request header? Mark Nottingham
- Re: Sec-Scheme request header? Mike West
- Re: Sec-Scheme request header? Patrick McManus
- Re: Sec-Scheme request header? Martin Thomson
- Re: Sec-Scheme request header? Mark Nottingham
- Re: Sec-Scheme request header? Mike West
- Re: Sec-Scheme request header? Mark Nottingham
- Re: Sec-Scheme request header? Mike West
- Re: Sec-Scheme request header? Amos Jeffries