Re: Follow-up on draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server

Kent Watsen <> Thu, 23 July 2020 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 195803A0303 for <>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.918
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.918 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, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JTg2G3h88Q3j for <>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3EEB3A099C for <>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jyd1u-0001XM-NL for; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 15:21:06 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 15:21:06 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jyd1s-0001WP-Pn for; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 15:21:04 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jyd1q-0006rH-UQ for; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 15:21:04 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=224i4yxa5dv7c2xz3womw6peuasteono;; t=1595517652; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=xBQXeObRfQVA3zcBWqxIB4P1ft2fY1BwUBU8k+ibmB0=; b=DrY7LAD6xIwf6F5f4vLKHmFClo14IPevAx0EVG3YVs6QVSpEvcBKXHZZHiVGrAjI mVp6NYAT+eq5vRwwA4bGhNMgmxo1SNrlHCuGzOwHN2dQvX7y4isdZ1F6IwsuNUWTOnG tDAjOB2qDtDqebXoUkPEVCc/3m+eanqi/Y1F7AiQ=
From: Kent Watsen <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A0F04758-0D8F-4BC8-A6E9-6D23DB53EA8E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 15:20:51 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "" <>
To: HTTP Working Group <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
X-SES-Outgoing: 2020.07.23-
Received-SPF: none client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1jyd1q-0006rH-UQ 9c37e4820209e57081145f6cacc5b9ed
Subject: Re: Follow-up on draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/37908
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

TL;DR;  Is client-auth to a web proxy mandatory?


> On Jul 21, 2020, at 12:40 PM, Kent Watsen <> wrote:
> Thank you all for your earlier comments regarding draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server <>.
> The draft is now almost ready for WGLC (which will be CC-ed here as well), but there remains one item for which your guidance is needed (see bottom).
> First, as a recap, one of the primarily takeaways from before was that proxies can be supported both at the TCP-level (i.e., via SOCKS) and at the HTTP-level (i.e. via a Web Proxy).
> In order to support TCP-level proxies, the “tcp-client-grouping”, which is defined in another draft (draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server <>), now defines optional configuration enabling any TCP-client to initiate a connection via a proxy.  FWIW, here is a direct link to the "tree diagram” <>  illustrating this.
> In order to support HTTP-level proxies, *this* draft was modified to introduce a new “proxy-connect” configuration stanza that, in effect, is the complete configuration for another HTTP-client connection.  Here’s a direct link to the “tree diagram” <> and here is a fully-populated example <> (see 2nd example).
> Does everything appear to be in order so far?
> Now, for the question, do Web Proxies require client-auth?  More specifically:
> when an HTTP client is connecting to a Web Proxy via HTTP, is HTTP-level auth (i.e. Basic) mandatory or optional?
> when an HTTP client is connecting to a Web Proxy via HTTPS, is TLS-level and/or HTTP-level auth mandatory or optional?
> Thanks,
> Kent