Re: #458: Requirements upon proxies for Expect

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 04 June 2013 02:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 04B3E21F84E7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 19:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.274
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wfz6h28omg8j for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 19:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DDDC11E8135 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 18:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UjgCC-0000CK-SO for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 01:37:56 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 01:37:56 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UjgCC-0000CK-SO@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UjgC0-0000BA-5E for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 01:37:44 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UjgBz-0000Cy-5h for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 01:37:44 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.184.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4EF9C22E1FA; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 21:37:18 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20130531061329.GF19728@1wt.eu>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:37:14 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EAD0EAA7-1D19-4B83-B5A3-6FBC0D5371D2@mnot.net>
References: <08A7729A-6B1F-46D2-AFA8-C37F6CFECD2A@mnot.net> <20130420091851.GS26517@1wt.eu> <3C8151C1-B850-4960-A2FD-305BD7CD2CAD@mnot.net> <20130531061329.GF19728@1wt.eu>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
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=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.444, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UjgBz-0000Cy-5h 70abbfd6f4ba7fd9b1cc8885965fd0d4
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #458: Requirements upon proxies for Expect
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/EAD0EAA7-1D19-4B83-B5A3-6FBC0D5371D2@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18164
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 31/05/2013, at 4:13 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

>> OK. How do other folks feel about this? I think the proposal is to change:
>> 
>>> If the proxy knows that the version of the next-hop server is HTTP/1.0 or
>>> lower, it must not forward the request, and it must respond with a 417
>>> (Expectation Failed) status code.
>> 
>> to:
>> 
>> """
>> If the proxy knows that the version of the next-hop server is HTTP/1.0 or
>> lower, it MAY either respond with a 417 (Expectation Failed) without
>> forwarding the request, or with a 100 (Continue) status code while forwarding
>> it.
>> """
> 
> I think it's better, but still I don't see the issue which could be caused
> by a proxy returning 100 when the server is known to be 1.1. I tend to
> consider that expect:100 is more related to the connection than to the
> whole path, eventhough it's still not hop-by-hop in its definition. After
> all, the first goal is to avoid uselessly sending huge amounts of data.
> And the fact that we define the behaviour of each element in the chain
> for this expect and 100 tends to confirm this hop-by-hop behaviour.

So, you'd like to relax this requirement for all connections, not just when the proxy knows that the forward hop is 1.0?

I think that's sensible, but it's a bigger change; what do others think? 


>> Note that this is applying to proxies, NOT gateways (like haproxy), which
>> AFAICT don't have any requirements applying to them. Hmm.
> 
> I understand, but some proxies will analyse posted contents to detect
> malware activity or information leaks etc... and will have to send 100
> themselves anyway.

Yep.


>> I'd also really like to see us define what "final status code" means; is it
>> just 417? Any 4xx or 5xx status? Any non-1xx status?
> 
> I think that since only 1xx are non-final, final are all other ones, but
> you're right, we should define this term.

Anyone disagree with "final" being any non-1xx status code? Note that this would allow an origin to respond with 200 OK to a request with an expectation in it (when the entire request hasn't yet been received). I think that's OK, just wanted to point it out.

Regards,

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