IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: SETTINGS_MIXED_SCHEME_PERMITTED | Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-07.txt

Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> Thu, 06 October 2016 04:01 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 922651293F2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 21:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.917 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=-2.996, 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 g-52pZR0VwT3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 21:01:43 -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 64C92127058 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 21:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1brzoZ-0003v2-3Z for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 03:57:47 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 03:57:47 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1brzoZ-0003v2-3Z@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 <hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi>) id 1brzoW-0003uO-UE for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 03:57:44 +0000
Received: from smtpvgate.fmi.fi ([193.166.223.36]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi>) id 1brzoV-0007jB-5g for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 03:57:44 +0000
Received: from torkku.fmi.fi (torkku.fmi.fi [193.166.211.55]) (envelope-from hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi) by smtpVgate.fmi.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8/smtpgate-20160114/smtpVgate) with ESMTP id u963v8hL007665 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:57:08 +0300
Received: from shell.siilo.fmi.fi by torkku.fmi.fi with ESMTP id u963v82I005131 ; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:57:08 +0300
Received: from shell.siilo.fmi.fi ([127.0.0.1]) by shell.siilo.fmi.fi with ESMTP id u963v8mx020247 ; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:57:08 +0300
Received: by shell.siilo.fmi.fi id u963v7wV020246; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:57:07 +0300
Message-Id: <201610060357.u963v7wV020246@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVJ7VRBH4VeGODkSUXdW9XHs8AjB_M0mm8Kt=nv3djvEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20161004160321.DFB4C111E5@welho-filter1.welho.com> <BN6PR03MB27082C2CF4DC3F8F82354FDE87C50@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <201610050451.u954pomK003643@shell.siilo.fmi.fi> <CAOdDvNpRN_trGi23BpqUxmaLoLvom9+Yiew0GkNkhgwvqw4Bew@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVKeqnyqhgL=jx1WqtcByqHes25XDJ684J+rNwvQt+znQ@mail.gmail.com> <201610051336.u95DaAW2020152@shell.siilo.fmi.fi> <CABkgnnVaBVE8mUxuGXYe-WeM_OkiNHcA=egnb1-nOxtdujShfw@mail.gmail.com> <201610051616.u95GGWcI031833@shell.siilo.fmi.fi> <BN6PR03MB2708B42C6964AA22AF8FFDC487C40@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnVJ7VRBH4VeGODkSUXdW9XHs8AjB_M0mm8Kt=nv3djvEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 06:57:07 +0300
Sender: hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi
From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
CC: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
X-Mailer: ELM [version ME+ 2.5 PLalpha41]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Filter: smtpVgate.fmi.fi: 3 received headers rewritten with id 20161006/32513/01
X-Filter: smtpVgate.fmi.fi: ID 32513/01, 1 parts scanned for known viruses
X-Filter: torkku: ID 8027/01, 1 parts scanned for known viruses
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (smtpVgate.fmi.fi [193.166.223.36]); Thu, 06 Oct 2016 06:57:08 +0300 (EEST)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=193.166.223.36; envelope-from=hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi; helo=smtpVgate.fmi.fi
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.111, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.644, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1brzoV-0007jB-5g 5f8f2ec99acdb037a0171b273625a5a6
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: SETTINGS_MIXED_SCHEME_PERMITTED | Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-07.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/201610060357.u963v7wV020246@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32501
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>

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>: (Thu Oct  6 03:35:09 2016)

> I think that Kari was hinting at a problem where a load balancer
> terminates TLS and then routes based on the Host header alone.  The
> back-end servers aren't all equally capable of distinguishing between
> "secure" and "not-secure".

Yes. Host: -header alone or on case of HTTP/2 also :authority
can be used (if there is it).

SETTINGS_MIXED_SCHEME_PERMITTED RFC may be written that way
that  load balancer MUST NOT send it, if load balancer 
works with Host: / :authority alone. 

It is harder to say when SETTINGS_MIXED_SCHEME_PERMITTED = 1
can be sent.

Effectively there HTTP/2 over TLS requires quite
much new software if SETTINGS_MIXED_SCHEME_PERMITTED
route is used. Perhaps that is good.

Ilari Liusvaara:

| Then there is the problem what to do if client sends a :scheme value
| the server/rproxy does not know anything about, not even how to properly
| reject it.
| 
| In the original proposal, I proposed adding a new stream error type for
| rejecting such streams.

Hypothetical SETTINGS_MIXED_SCHEME_PERMITTED RFC  need specify
that error code.

/ Kari Hurtta

v2.20.3 | Report a Bug | By Email