Re: Sec-Scheme request header?
Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Wed, 13 April 2016 13:46 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 1C6F712E193 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.916
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-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 (1024-bit key) header.d=sendgrid.me
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 EgB71x8LKO3U for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:46:41 -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 8443312E167 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aqL3T-000672-5B for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:42:03 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:42:03 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aqL3T-000672-5B@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 <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1aqL3O-000660-LM for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:41:58 +0000
Received: from o1678917x173.outbound-mail.sendgrid.net ([167.89.17.173]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1aqL3M-0007oT-W4 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:41:58 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sendgrid.me; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; s=smtpapi; bh=Z+P8cxyJuE8rOmP9U+GZPme2s5I=; b=Xda2huyg6lSF1d4/VP bt0M2Ybx0lZScQ4A+PCa2a+gBs4jFZj+yu4GUWM7HRhLyjI5U3BTkPv3PT7B2ei/ 9bnXa42W2Cbgze6MgGqNlgwsvfjUloAMRZyP1g+UVAMyBNXyntdncp8rmFNvf04A cPYovh1BWvW1wB1IhklqM83C0=
Received: by filter0458p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0458p1mdw1.18793.570E4C802E 2016-04-13 13:41:20.899303817 +0000 UTC
Received: from mail-vk0-f41.google.com (mail-vk0-f41.google.com [209.85.213.41]) by ismtpd0006p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id -MTLzEWJQw28jx4EWLKzUg for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:41:20.773 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id t129so69577854vkg.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWhujHFHC1JiyMKneDUFl/vpLaxmQjVyiqIZuBN9Wwiz55OKUOQ6fQbS0H8ds7JLQUYPs6kMt4akWnJrQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.176.65.4 with SMTP id j4mr4645476uad.22.1460554880140; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.159.37.3 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKXHy=f=499HWYurEsTodjrJr6rR7DBkcFiVwmJGE0ogYFPAaQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ED1304AC-126B-486B-A58D-81D24C8F5C06@mnot.net> <CAKXHy=f=499HWYurEsTodjrJr6rR7DBkcFiVwmJGE0ogYFPAaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:41:19 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNrZuDHBLcMeKNhCMewi1zKOAnUt-CY9Cdh4vgi-CjcVAg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNrZuDHBLcMeKNhCMewi1zKOAnUt-CY9Cdh4vgi-CjcVAg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c122faece7c6205305dee94"
X-SG-EID: YLWet4rakcOTMHWvPPwWbcsiUJbN1FCn0PHYd/Uujh4TNgB6sGMuWqTdDv1zIFjRSmqUgx6spuRlp2 SEXIpI28TRpMAxgnNU7hlew9CWueosIpMqEWCARMwxNiJ/+2lKZ8pKW0p+UNGm1gdTEJ2hUv/4GsuV DT6uHpjSN4E6h/2R1uDU9sDt8KDplGq9T70eRQt7u+r9vQ1cZrFaO5ePvvfmtRuqQgjr5KEODgXMg2 k=
X-SendGrid-Contentd-ID: {"test_id":"1460554881"}
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=167.89.17.173; envelope-from=bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net; helo=o1678917x173.outbound-mail.sendgrid.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.419, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_GREY=0.424, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1aqL3M-0007oT-W4 5df12f3bfd24b60e8b557740430ada47
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Sec-Scheme request header?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOdDvNrZuDHBLcMeKNhCMewi1zKOAnUt-CY9Cdh4vgi-CjcVAg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31438
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 Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote: > Could you explain the use-case? Ctrl+F in > https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/gh-pages/ietf95/minutes.md came > up empty, so context would be helpful. :) > I think we were discussing the general milieu of request routing complexity (421, coalescing, alt-svc, etc..).. and how the scheme was the one part of the origin that isn't always available to the final consumer of the request whether that is because it is h1 and not in the request at all, or whether it is because in h2 it is carried in a transport level colon header..
- 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