Re: Op-sec simplification

Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Tue, 01 November 2016 00:42 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 4C42E129467 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.897 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_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, 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 XK1jBmNVrumq for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:42:11 -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 0D4D612947A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c1N56-0001N6-92 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 00:37:36 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 00:37:36 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c1N56-0001N6-92@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 <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1c1N4z-0001ML-TT for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 00:37:29 +0000
Received: from o1.7n.fshared.sendgrid.net ([167.89.55.7]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1c1N4t-0000UU-IH for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 00:37:24 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sendgrid.me; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:subject:to:cc:content-type; s=smtpapi; bh=2U6SFJAo5zf3te3/MuP0nEjlG0A=; b=fozst9CaWDGEAWY34w gxuXeN3cUEP5D2lTp7x1tppjHMce9CmijfH1cWHUuVPR/DrzrtRkhEXhR5SQGWD8 RKrNb82/utHPJXF8JZeWFdhYA7NXr/gv9SqqBjVknoe/TbnYDK19Px0bQie8XS1q 0py5Hzaduo/VXFdDHo5o1cTss=
Received: by filter0347p1las1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0347p1las1-14420-5817E3A8-1F 2016-11-01 00:36:56.526304747 +0000 UTC
Received: from mail-oi0-f42.google.com (mail-oi0-f42.google.com [209.85.218.42]) by ismtpd0003p1sjc2.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id yYHozYzYTLSIfz4S1CHyHQ for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 00:36:56.224 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oi0-f42.google.com with SMTP id 128so64533632oih.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcIPg+QWdRCpJFlAd4x9Iv1ECWmhDcHmySpvdNgavwZxIobhiZlrJdqYztWOG0cC7g4O4lJz2PENMjuAA==
X-Received: by 10.107.140.150 with SMTP id o144mr23737834iod.8.1477960615773; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.228.236 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <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> <CF71AA38-8B96-453D-91F5-EE83E847A6D0@mnot.net>
From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:36:55 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNrvkYXTi3WkDG79Dqt0Nd4Q5q97b40BoVjeMGV39JFeTg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNrvkYXTi3WkDG79Dqt0Nd4Q5q97b40BoVjeMGV39JFeTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c06a5327ed2ec05403285e7
X-SG-EID: YLWet4rakcOTMHWvPPwWbcsiUJbN1FCn0PHYd/Uujh4NojdrRYzV/b0EMg+ncI53I5HANIU0ufwODV P1qqMBubKzVxca5lXCISG77pxJFkXK5falCyAuvoeDbh6CJtrb+q/NyUmP3ndGybbx2wDCwN+qMnrm OtSbvQ1k3iN9jEkTtYIa/fnj313zpma6EFJqWlVi+StyNBv5cNXAz+txk05rv49k/pm9pdtT7bJbFQ c=
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=167.89.55.7; envelope-from=bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net; helo=o1.7n.fshared.sendgrid.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.386, 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.656, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1c1N4t-0000UU-IH a4c12f091bc9e87151642ef9ce5caffe
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Op-sec simplification
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOdDvNrvkYXTi3WkDG79Dqt0Nd4Q5q97b40BoVjeMGV39JFeTg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32773
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>

or we just punt the legacy h1 cases away. I'm not aware of anyone doing an
experiment with them.



On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:25 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> 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>rg>; 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/
>
>
>