IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New tunnel protocol

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 02 February 2015 05:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2EAF1A9167 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Feb 2015 21:16:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 w1M-R9VDp5LZ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Feb 2015 21:16:21 -0800 (PST)
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 093231A9155 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Feb 2015 21:16:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YI9Jg-0002dK-9R for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 05:12:56 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 05:12:56 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YI9Jg-0002dK-9R@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1YI9JY-0002bO-1g for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 05:12:48 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1YI9JW-00069B-1f for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 05:12:46 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.83] (unknown [118.209.25.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1A47122E200; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 00:12:15 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVtfkqmVPo02sKqyBfp0aNUx4sWZmTnHoDjLwrKpq0+PQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:12:12 +1100
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <06176450-94AB-4079-870F-A60C2ADC059B@mnot.net>
References: <CABkgnnUAwiqx01ezC8+VxG9s02LKMboS3mBJpTgWx+OLGCVZEw@mail.gmail.com> <emc92eaefa-09b5-4c15-95de-89dbb2bbf7b6@bodybag> <CABkgnnU0z2bSVbj+hVDaL_8w4U17r8NgkTked9DHFv7xseF7pw@mail.gmail.com> <54C8241F.7050208@treenet.co.nz> <50FF94F2-1C80-4E21-A230-4EEEB7D92D52@mnot.net> <20150128103648.GC9218@1wt.eu> <CABkgnnVtfkqmVPo02sKqyBfp0aNUx4sWZmTnHoDjLwrKpq0+PQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
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=-3.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.041, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1YI9JW-00069B-1f 278161d858d6cddbe6e5fb917cae9d21
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: New tunnel protocol
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/06176450-94AB-4079-870F-A60C2ADC059B@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28731
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 29 Jan 2015, at 4:59 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 28 January 2015 at 02:36, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>> 
>> That's why I think it's reasonable to consider that, as a first step, we
>> could have something which satisfies exactly what Martin needs (eg: repeat
>> in a header field what is supposed to be advertised in the TLS ALPN), and
>> to ensure that the name of this header doesn't make it difficult to later
>> add information about what is being tunnelled (eg: TLS vs VPN vs anything
>> else).
> 
> I have no objection to other signals, certainly.
> 
> The other signals are much harder to conceptualize.  I'm not opposed
> to exposing more information if it can be justified and worked into a
> solution.  If someone has a need, they should develop a solution
> around that need and propose it.

Perhaps the draft could include more about intended use cases in the introduction and/or header definition. I think the confusion we've seen is completely understandable, since it *looks* like something that can be used to parse what happens in the tunnel.

Another name for the header might (or might not) help too.

Cheers,


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

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status