IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Op-sec simplification

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 31 October 2016 23:29 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 8F3A9129458 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, 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 OJNSePOTiipn for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:29:30 -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 D6F08127078 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c1LyB-0002gU-Tz for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:26:23 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:26:23 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c1LyB-0002gU-Tz@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1c1Ly7-0002ee-6A for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:26:19 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1c1Ly1-0005oy-5D for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:26:13 +0000
Received: from [192.168.3.104] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A30C22E253; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:25:49 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR03MB27104BDCA1FDCC28FFBBC18887AE0@CY4PR03MB2710.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 10:25:46 +1100
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CF71AA38-8B96-453D-91F5-EE83E847A6D0@mnot.net>
References: <20161031053239.E9C6D12F5D@welho-filter3.welho.com> <842E817E-77E4-45E0-B5E3-D45F8D7AFA15@mnot.net> <CABkgnnVm2roXz5BiQeh5m2a_zcsfC3rFZ2pnoQ_m9k6b3K=58w@mail.gmail.com> <4CE68DCC-BE25-42DE-9247-4195103797EF@mnot.net> <CY4PR03MB27104BDCA1FDCC28FFBBC18887AE0@CY4PR03MB2710.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
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=-8.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.340, 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: mimas.w3.org 1c1Ly1-0005oy-5D ec4c57b1ed017533e4d5419df3164c88
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Op-sec simplification
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CF71AA38-8B96-453D-91F5-EE83E847A6D0@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32768
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>

Yes. What I meant was whether the opp-sec spec is writing in an implicit requirement to assure that it was absolute (for that request).


> On 1 Nov. 2016, at 10:24 am, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> There's an explicit requirement in RFC 7230 for servers to accept it:
>>  To allow for transition to the absolute-form for all requests in some
>>  future version of HTTP, a server MUST accept the absolute-form in
>>  requests, even though HTTP/1.1 clients will only send them in
>>  requests to proxies.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net] 
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 4:17 PM
> To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> Cc: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>; HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Op-sec simplification
> 
> 
>> On 1 Nov. 2016, at 10:15 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 1 November 2016 at 09:41, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>> Hold on -- are we layering in a new requirement to use the absolute form of the URL?
>> 
>> I don't know how we carry the scheme any other way.  We might try to 
>> weasel this as being not "directly" to the origin server.
>> 
>> Maybe I should point out that this is in contradiction to that section.
> 
> I suspect someone with a process bent will say that it needs to update 7230, and having an experimental doc update a standards track one might be... interesting. I suppose if we have consensus to do it, it might work.
> 
> 
>> (FWIW, the servers I'm aware of all handle absolute URIs well enough.)
> 
> Is there an implicit requirement for them to check that it was absolute?
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email