Re: Mixed schemes

Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Tue, 22 November 2016 03:42 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 7020B1294F8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:42:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.55 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_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, 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 C2VqItsrTImM for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:42:48 -0800 (PST)
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 8077F1294F2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:42:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c91vO-0003SY-48 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 03:39:14 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 03:39:14 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c91vO-0003SY-48@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) 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 1c91vD-0003Qv-Ju for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 03:39:03 +0000
Received: from o1.7nn.fshared.sendgrid.net ([167.89.55.65]) by titan.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 1c91v6-00012N-GZ for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 03:38:58 +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=0W/WWr101hA98zsCX+UvyZs0zF0=; b=RpXS/sfVGHrfElXEwz GzggFvkMfGxQw74vDFzXkpVthrqkuqOYEDzoMqRsrk1XihDLcESjnIGYAQPmd6OL VsanfAfM0gOKv5XxSSleNXoWprZ4SyGNVo6syi87ap5CBWZqQsIEGsApiC5MW1VN RNNflzHu/lxiLGFiSZFCOVmu0=
Received: by filter0650p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0650p1mdw1-17260-5833BDB5-8 2016-11-22 03:38:29.116616264 +0000 UTC
Received: from mail-qk0-f178.google.com (mail-qk0-f178.google.com [209.85.220.178]) by ismtpd0004p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id 2G_hozSZSg6p8o8ABIWY6A for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 03:38:29.070 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk0-f178.google.com with SMTP id x190so7090298qkb.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:38:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03zmwn/Xo6iqTN+NkRBNEVTD4+g8uVg8XqpbG3pc+Qx7YyhuH5WADGaNkIyVzBOS3QO/1yrjw0ChtV/ew==
X-Received: by 10.55.27.141 with SMTP id m13mr23372428qkh.28.1479785908790; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:38:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.148.37 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:38:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKC-DJiirKrwyNx8cG57DsFCa=AkQQbxv8BiQT3GcYB2qXL99w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnWHO3ffdeviYjCEzqao43cUMWGmjmNGxM=OHg2G4SXGwA@mail.gmail.com> <ED7EED77-4CDA-453B-938E-F98B558FED0F@mnot.net> <CAOdDvNqD4iW8g2y0yYiEBwx6oY-7V_S_D3W+29K5PvtjZogMuw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJiirKrwyNx8cG57DsFCa=AkQQbxv8BiQT3GcYB2qXL99w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 22:38:28 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNoWQ6_JXqN+gYz8MuVDoqut+7FR-SnwQwOghwQg1ex6Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNoWQ6_JXqN+gYz8MuVDoqut+7FR-SnwQwOghwQg1ex6Kg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org>
Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11409a566ffdf70541db81d9
X-SG-EID: YLWet4rakcOTMHWvPPwWbcsiUJbN1FCn0PHYd/Uujh4HjkmP3tLftb+sVgJmJ0W58YSgT/c0M92eYA yx6ZqnSxIvl0N7v7i7lJWRR5hKrNNWriMtnJ4FNtyKd5/FiBPCedK08QDcPZryCMhUJb/lcsXUdJch eeostnamYjFZSJ/k0dnceIq3sT969n7qc9Wmqd37sYxGdQ/OTruW2BWuQptfvwhGa5p9sPeAwzoPYT 0=
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=167.89.55.65; envelope-from=bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net; helo=o1.7nn.fshared.sendgrid.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.106, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.999, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1c91v6-00012N-GZ 860a385f3eafbec751bec1391f3391e5
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Mixed schemes
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOdDvNoWQ6_JXqN+gYz8MuVDoqut+7FR-SnwQwOghwQg1ex6Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32952
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>

they don't coalesce on h1, but they do coalesce on h2. The distinction
isn't about cleartext - h2 has coalescing rules :)

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org> wrote:

> Forbidding cross-scheme coalescing by default addresses my concern.  I'm
> happy for us to explore opt-in approaches in the future (eg, a SETTING).
>
> As for #1/#2, what do browsers typically do today for clear-text HTTP
> pconns that resolve to the same IP but have different origins / host
> headers? If they don't normally coalesce on cleartext, I think forbidding
> coalescing is fine here as well as the default.
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I really think we can do #1, but I won't object to #2.
>>
>> -P
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Personally -- SGTM (including #2).
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 21 Nov. 2016, at 1:29 pm, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Patrick (perhaps indirectly) suggested that we can harness a Firefox
>>> bug here:
>>> >
>>> >  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/270
>>> >
>>> > That is, rather than mention that coalescing between https and http
>>> > might happen, forbid it instead.
>>> >
>>> > I'm fairly sure that this will address the concerns Erik had.  Maybe
>>> > too effectively; objections like this would be good to hear.
>>> >
>>> > I didn't add any text here about coalescing two http:// origins.  I
>>> > don't want to close this issue until we resolve that too.  Should we:
>>> >
>>> > 1. allow coalescing of two http:// origins by default
>>> > 2. forbid coalescing of two http:// origins without an explicit signal
>>> >
>>> > My preference is for option 2.
>>> >
>>> > Let's be perfectly clear, there's no inherent protocol reason why we
>>> > can't coalesce.  But this stems from an (over)abundance of caution.
>>> > We can develop explicit opt-in signals regarding coalescing if it came
>>> > to that ... #include <ORIGIN frame discussions>.
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>