Re: #473, was: p7: forwarding Proxy-*

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 29 July 2013 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 CAADA21F997B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.013
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.986, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vvXFVr0A4hes for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DBB611E80E6 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V3oln-00082B-7r for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:49:55 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:49:55 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V3oln-00082B-7r@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1V3ole-00081N-Ku for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:49:46 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1V3old-0007a9-Gq for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:49:46 +0000
Received: from dhcp-53cf.meeting.ietf.org (unknown [130.129.83.207]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B17B4509B5; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:49:23 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <51F67D4E.2020308@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:49:24 +0200
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D595AD08-B370-4B8A-9A41-609F63AE8BA3@mnot.net>
References: <76583F5C-A175-42EA-B0A0-CB5663A5E3AC@mnot.net> <9E71BAB0-0D88-4B6E-B1A1-AA228349E3CA@gbiv.com> <27ED39F0-723C-4358-9A22-4AAEEC1BA912@mnot.net> <37ABC670-148B-4D7A-AE21-6692EFFC122F@gbiv.com> <3257D0DA-F6FA-4E24-919C-C4FB4864F69E@mnot.net> <51F4FB7F.3050807@gmx.de> <D9E38713-A86F-47BE-9124-D4EA88700BD3@mnot.net> <51F66E8D.1090109@gmx.de> <120946A4-C088-41B9-836E-50A59A1D5941@mnot.net> <51F67241.3090004@gmx.de> <51F67D4E.2020308@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.132, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V3old-0007a9-Gq ca143a63747ce72f3bea7bf88d8fbcb3
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #473, was: p7: forwarding Proxy-*
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/D595AD08-B370-4B8A-9A41-609F63AE8BA3@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18958
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>

/me re-reads; yep, looks good.

Thanks,


On Jul 29, 2013, at 4:33 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2013-07-29 15:46, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2013-07-29 15:39, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Jul 29, 2013, at 3:30 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2013-07-29 14:31, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>>> The conclusion of the conversation was Roy's statement:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> No, I am just saying that Connection is not required; if it is not
>>>>>> included in Connection, then the intention is that it be forwarded
>>>>>> until consumed.  OTOH, if it is included in Connection, then it
>>>>>> will be consumed or deleted by the immediate recipient.  AFAIK,
>>>>>> these fields are not normally included in Connection, but there
>>>>>> might be a good reason to if the proxy selection is complicated.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Which seems reasonable and no one has objected. However, p7 still says:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field
>>>>>> applies only to the current connection, and intermediaries should
>>>>>> not forward it to downstream clients. However, an intermediate
>>>>>> proxy might need to obtain its own credentials by requesting them
>>>>>> from the downstream client, which in some circumstances will appear
>>>>>> as if the proxy is forwarding the Proxy-Authenticate header field.
>>>> 
>>>> Out of curiosity: why does the "SHOULD NOT" show up as "should not"?
>>> 
>>> Cut and paste of the HTML in Safari loses the uppercasing applied by
>>> the stylesheet, I think.
>> 
>> If you look at the raw HTML; you'll see it has "SHOULD NOT" (exactly so
>> that copy&paste does the expected thing). Bad Safari.
>> 
>>>>> … with similar text for Proxy-Authorization. The "SHOULD NOT
>>>>> forward…" requirement is in conflict with the sentiment expressed
>>>>> above.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've changed the target to p7.
>>>> 
>>>> OK.
>>>> 
>>>> So maybe change
>>>> 
>>>>  "Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field
>>>> applies only to the current connection, and intermediaries SHOULD NOT
>>>> forward it to downstream clients."
>>>> 
>>>> to
>>>> 
>>>>  "Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field
>>>> applies only to the current connection, and *proxies* SHOULD NOT
>>>> forward it to downstream clients."
>>>> 
>>>> This would allow non-proxy intermediaries to forward it.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think we need to make it a more discretionary thing; e.g.,
>>> 
>>> "Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field usually
>>> applies to the current connection, and proxies generally will consume
>>> it, rather than forwarding it to downstream clients."
>>> 
>>> With similar changes for Proxy-Authorization.
>>> 
>>> Make sense?
>> 
>> Sounds good.
>> 
>> Best regards, Julian
> 
> Proposed patch for Proxy-Authenticate: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/473/473.diff>
> 
> Looking at Proxy-Authorization:
> 
> "Unlike Authorization, the Proxy-Authorization header field applies only to the next outbound proxy that demanded authentication using the Proxy-Authenticate field. When multiple proxies are used in a chain, the Proxy-Authorization header field is consumed by the first outbound proxy that was expecting to receive credentials. A proxy MAY relay the credentials from the client request to the next proxy if that is the mechanism by which the proxies cooperatively authenticate a given request."
> 
> ...which seems to be correct already, right?
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/