Re: site-wide headers

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Sat, 01 October 2016 09:23 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 247DD12B23F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 02:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.237
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, 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 dApWysN8XICf for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 02:23:04 -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 461BA12B23E for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 02:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bqGRd-0002xA-On for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 09:18:57 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 09:18:57 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bqGRd-0002xA-On@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 <w@1wt.eu>) id 1bqGRZ-0002vL-8X for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 09:18:53 +0000
Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60] helo=1wt.eu) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1bqGRX-0003Ly-63 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 09:18:52 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u919IMwm000416; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 11:18:22 +0200
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 11:18:22 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20161001091822.GA412@1wt.eu>
References: <CABkgnnWDys91VF5xCBPc4+J8JQnj75VsGoLVkpXxM60egYd5GQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAF6rxg=PmJh123cUWWaZe3oNbxCcFZKdyMM+7MydVNV4AUmu8g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxg=PmJh123cUWWaZe3oNbxCcFZKdyMM+7MydVNV4AUmu8g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.575, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bqGRX-0003Ly-63 28699c4604aa1d8383600acba8db76f7
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: site-wide headers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20161001091822.GA412@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32436
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 Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 11:11:32AM +0300, Eitan Adler wrote:
> c) I don't understand why we have HS or SM tags at all. So long as the
> site-headers file returns 200, has contents, and has the correct media
> type those headers should be used.

Simply so that :
  1) the server knows whether or not it should use this method instead
     of sending all the relevant headers

  2) the client knows whether the server assumed the client is going to
     use them or if the server doesn't expect the client to use them

> d) Do we want to create a whitelist of headers that should exist in
> site-headers and have user agents validate it? At the moment the draft
> lists a small number of blacklisted items.

It may do more harm than good because everyone has a different use case.
Suggestions and examples are more appropriate here (that's what the draft
does by the way).

Regards,
Willy