IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: #148: Reasonable Assurances and H2C

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 01 March 2016 11:16 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D4B1A0248 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 03:16:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 QlY20GrQ3zJV for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 03:16:20 -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 546EC1A01F0 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 03:16:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aaiDQ-0000v3-3I for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2016 11:11:44 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 11:11:44 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aaiDQ-0000v3-3I@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1aaiAx-0007fU-N1 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2016 11:09:11 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1aaiAt-0003tE-RG for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2016 11:09:11 +0000
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([93.217.79.30]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LtlG5-1ZrNbE4581-011EPn; Tue, 01 Mar 2016 12:08:31 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <20160209074851.32332.24065.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20160209182822.C37A959F@welho-filter2.welho.com> <B7164F24-DDA1-4753-8A8B-04809B1965FF@mnot.net> <CAC4RtVCCExJNE0y8480vC1W56NP4XhzfvLs+ASh1Qy-UcDPBNw@mail.gmail.com> <C2145C5A-0255-43F9-A44A-F6C7974CDD4C@mnot.net> <CABkgnnW3-c1qaC_N2UP5TLnPS0rrOYjOYFb4nhUzfQ_8AFsTJA@mail.gmail.com> <072D900D-422E-4168-8DCF-51A739BC9E5A@mnot.net> <CABkgnnWAbKY8RZ5gvjPan3M_-XpjFSau0yDN97H=CfLb0DNL2g@mail.gmail.com> <2DDC5527-43AC-4BD2-8ED9-F68D747A7E0C@mnot.net> <56CFFE31.6090503@greenbytes.de> <12592576-7F89-4309-B97D-753C9402CE7B@mnot.net> <CALaySJJz_FK=JRtEPo1PH5VTJb=XbUJZE711hBLKadrdsvt_Lw@mail.gmail.com> <97553164-A7C4-4F42-B06F-0AD119982669@mnot.net> <CALaySJKU6ztSOrpwQkwS+dFF_+8kcvE3T=34eEWX=reLY6koeQ@mail.gmail.com> <6CDFF367-D510-4F02-8C23-B9AF504F7A84@mnot.net> <56D31520.1080001@greenbytes.de>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <56D5782C.7010005@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 12:08:28 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56D31520.1080001@greenbytes.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:urPK5D05PP4dkrOv+8BGCKsD3sWM7u8qTNaMveatHxHXvnzZQO5 Se/ky4B5mcRwrtedqNEQDlTnRKquDDuQhKXaNmjXkT530jUTelI4GarIlQEBR6b43PxRgcK +Mbm7W5kth+z1QhE14EV6S2JXFBWsbSNKCAoQ48vsc21XCFVjOA/OtXcQmaUXxUZLeXmZn8 sOMvMru2RYGrFFFou8m+w==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:KOlb9zXgSgI=:M3uDEOlIU0D+W5oRg52u9a T8ApBJn4c1W32UVgpR9pea2h6qONqdDjaKGfZdXlsyoSydY5loEc1Xfuz5fgEo8ClGZS7kaJ4 MDQ9AGyyeI6C8vGzpBkCgOHePY7f9AcpFKYuHXQ5UaIhinC1hbdThf5cpRrkWCqQwAV1wrP1F soMQuVMZ/FR9Ug+VMKgxR+JpLbDMQKcncmkgnijQfk38w2vy4namGY7MIQlHOwaavmhlzqUIj i6WZHlpsVLK7dFHZlLSD4zpzaIdYwRtA4tKbE3NteGDqrTb4sQdMEE/YieCsAe//ytDvMF/u8 8TMUxQ0s0G8Nk+F1t3R51uCtiMxfXruVIPUr6pSHFp3Segg94kFHbiWjYLpaJGfhb2157tz+7 7k/xwCDuYKGRQTSSHsHDS07rPoKz5pZZ9fbhTUEzuLIOheIuKyluVscoK+TL7WqfUhdBXtmya gnSBr5jUtGvVo9wzz4hNVWObojV44xtdYT1RCeRBGmAZVSOeTHU1gYggF/tBQAoXrOv5UyJBb krccso9t1TX7bp2o9cq/O6//DDtpemJKSUlUEwTE376KwBYGbf2LDO1BsDpK6QYHy773I2pQK NP+BFkuVOfguKgFIj7SPKLNmwa9ssazyMOsp/EFwxU79JIFc5m7aqHR5RyQZAXdQ3Hcx2VdvE Hl6Ap1h0a3U5tajo8FYZTiQ0GBDv5+hz7ReuvY+Od1l2S2KyC7SrqEDctQFOSmQz8tEg9I05K zj3iHaKNLhUJbrN/ZeFx0DBCs0He2/fD4Z6wuBuQ9iLItQrdHJn7KaRdhlOI70OjnAufrzhU3 9XRcUcY
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.22; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.075, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1aaiAt-0003tE-RG 9fc6701c3bb61a42d0874f525d8bc75c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #148: Reasonable Assurances and H2C
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/56D5782C.7010005@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31126
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>

On 2016-02-28 16:41, Julian Reschke wrote:
> ...
>> A registry doesn't feel right because this isn't a protocol element.
>> This isn't an extension in the usual sense; it's a controlled
>> loosening of the spec's (security-sensitive) requirements.
>>
>> However, it doesn't seem like 'updates' is the right way to do this
>> either. Upon reflection, I wonder if we really need either property
>> (at least in such a rigorous form); people will find the mechanisms if
>> they get implemented, and we've been happy to have OppSec as
>> Experimental.
>>
>> Anyone have a problem with dropping this?
>>
>> """
>> Other means of establishing them MUST be documented in an RFC that
>> updates this specification.
>> """
>
> Sounds right to me.
>
> Best regards, Julian

As I heard no pushback I've done this in 
<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/6b1cc1995538fde23241ed4d89725f4e9a62b3ec>.

I plan to submit a new draft later today (which then would go to the IESG).

Best regards, Julian

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status