IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Sec-Scheme request header?

Mike West <mkwst@google.com> Thu, 14 April 2016 08:11 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 9966C12DD4A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 01:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.016
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 xEd1BdQddsBO for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 01:11:54 -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 4487612DD1F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 01:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aqcJL-0003u4-Ao for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:07:35 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:07:35 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aqcJL-0003u4-Ao@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 <mkwst@google.com>) id 1aqcJI-0003tJ-CT for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:07:32 +0000
Received: from mail-lf0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mkwst@google.com>) id 1aqcJF-0007j0-NK for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:07:31 +0000
Received: by mail-lf0-f46.google.com with SMTP id e190so99654536lfe.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 01:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Kj0/RQqO2tcLDF/ZNTRIWE5sJ1I+IrsrTPkiPb/RdOc=; b=aIKenDjc2CbB2uyiwlsr6hTqZ71+IbSEeq/CsKCogLOyaIo45JptujtcslNYbbI4lL UclRIWh2/HjqSIXPod7ZJxCq+sYiC5883dTTdWaKxUa/Mr7917z9y5IH7TrVabSfdYlO 6GO0mrtLLEHjNvYwLZM7LPUG1OpBaiki+SI/ifZOi6qm9ve9n8330g2JwQYOfzH7ERFE /10kpWklJqqzOPtpZYLBJxJRH6mHtrXlQVAhnciRkDiykfkVIa1eQIQKBjGbhCNNB1o6 NcqqjBGpr4mPY7LVj+2kF5xB9JqY7EeIEvCPFXXGuKXalvqhQ2STzRHZ8EnMUNHqEL41 lSqQ==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Kj0/RQqO2tcLDF/ZNTRIWE5sJ1I+IrsrTPkiPb/RdOc=; b=BDFigNTfq4dh/VpsABbgeS8S8Wve/hoAab+aXAmuKXM6VIvAgBz3kn3SnMiJVlXqnL zFo07w0r8PlX6oeYaBBppm5XbQoks5SY4pxjTrEJBxNiHneq+08v2UsE9ZBLq5cvh+0s 3k/xD0FCZF7q3GLHINSZ5BdNZywGKtc4G1pARz4zmMkAJBelLY6g41OuORdS7BzwBH5v m9OAZDAPVMJndeSg/Lek6lpVH0QzagLmCRgJhCXyMEFKl1IElvYaadAv+5Y26tI32wxf pM8JOmJ+EnvsLvw43aRtOSBQfIYCWt0EO4WXptiMONJK5tyMihfYu6nXlVkTzuuhsZyp MwrQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWa7UnLLvo2wuGWjKxcJ8GA9HfoBKxrwYFcdd5y38K2uQ4YSCtztBw0wWv09/F+RE47QZZyBmwNbE+K9w6b
X-Received: by 10.112.85.43 with SMTP id e11mr6258923lbz.80.1460621222973; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 01:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.49.18 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 01:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <A9541032-39B5-48CE-86B7-A04A7C84E75D@mnot.net>
References: <ED1304AC-126B-486B-A58D-81D24C8F5C06@mnot.net> <CAKXHy=f=499HWYurEsTodjrJr6rR7DBkcFiVwmJGE0ogYFPAaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNrZuDHBLcMeKNhCMewi1zKOAnUt-CY9Cdh4vgi-CjcVAg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUxh=Anv3HjCMo9nhggmmTz8G+Mc2WHLtugBrdb1Jppzw@mail.gmail.com> <B66FB746-B2D0-4106-91AC-B4E0995BE75A@mnot.net> <CAKXHy=e8yD=Ask4kR6zhH9-1YSOqJXexb1XaRjgTp0aMXTUiqw@mail.gmail.com> <A9541032-39B5-48CE-86B7-A04A7C84E75D@mnot.net>
From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:06:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=eY3vLogKBCPHvdXZds+mh_+2ZF-OX=HcNzrRUoi6a8PQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11349a2625e29805306d6185"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.215.46; envelope-from=mkwst@google.com; helo=mail-lf0-f46.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=2.334, BAYES_00=-1.9, 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=-0.996, 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 1aqcJF-0007j0-NK 5cde8b40985b8ccaf5e05eb5bd2d2e92
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Sec-Scheme request header?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAKXHy=eY3vLogKBCPHvdXZds+mh_+2ZF-OX=HcNzrRUoi6a8PQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31451
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>

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> This is something that would be really useful for disambiguating things in
> cases where the same server-side code is handling both HTTP and HTTPS URLs.
>

I think I'd prefer to encourage folks to treat HTTP and HTTPS as "the same"
with regard to the resource which is being universally {identified,
located}. I freely admit, however, that I'm not at all familiar with what
developers do with backend servers and proxies and CDNs, so I'm sure there
are solid use cases I'm missing. Could you point me to some?

-mike

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status