IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Feedback on draft-thomson-httpbis-catch

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 11 March 2014 08:14 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A06921A0381 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, 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 y4nSncf95FHY for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495661A0369 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1WNHoM-0005Ve-Rm for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:13:18 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:13:18 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1WNHoM-0005Ve-Rm@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1WNHo3-0005L2-IL for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:12:59 +0000
Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1WNHo2-0001gP-Hj for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:12:59 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id y10so9663004wgg.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=thZqCwXdWta4W8OFlRnLGkeGDOs3vPciIgQFIkuH1CA=; b=UsU6mNO+MoW9fsLf74yCfxnfb5MW6RtexwHHPQEe3Hu5ov1Lb4HuWL+UWurBKDyMu9 4BN3l0GAHhjg6EKs28UeHxJZ5qgObqsuIoprMQRzJT1YsbAEBCpBpFx7VCRvBkU/7dIK Zmo6MUzyX/q0geM9jKao1SFYXJz6oNNFcIceIktMl7IC2mo1hXP7sW24GLtIINVlPC3r IDzVWgU0I6s8MS4Yz3JFcQSo+JFiaM1111/sVUVlLw/UBwwk8lXKLR57isjlaVMnLJi5 Z7cRI5HFMJxpQRoF9Pc1/3I9YXO87VcCzCNcYA2JWIAQBAA08uYuq2DmGC91TT/msjgg MqUg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.2.168 with SMTP id 8mr35729177wjv.8.1394525552046; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.10.196 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <531EBF44.9080902@gmx.de>
References: <CABkgnnU1RMHN8sGsRc_KSw3+EutZnrrb-N=WpzP5wuqQ-ECe7Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWDu301rXkX2u-AhptkSEr9AJb3LGJ3wfvVbhD0Oy4H6g@mail.gmail.com> <531EBF44.9080902@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:12:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVk4GJ++LPbPRKYw4tYmr=k9ugA3SqQLNGLBOxVO+u+0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.42; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f42.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.783, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1WNHo2-0001gP-Hj 619d54d992ef5c9eada168acb60d6e46
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Feedback on draft-thomson-httpbis-catch
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnVk4GJ++LPbPRKYw4tYmr=k9ugA3SqQLNGLBOxVO+u+0g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/22619
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>

Thanks Julian,

https://github.com/martinthomson/drafts/commit/bbc206889f1946c6f4f020152bc0f0d4c956e328

On 11 March 2014 08:46, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>    HTTP/2 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-http2] forbids the use of renegotiation,
>>    except for at the very beginning of a connection.  This makes
>>    addressing some client authentication use cases difficult.
>
> Not in the referenced version of the draft, right?

True, but there doesn't seem to be much point in pursuing this draft
if HTTP/2 doesn't make that statement :)

>> 2. Client Certificate Challenge
>>
>>    parameters other than "realm".  Other parameters MAY be used to
>>    provide a client with information it can use to select an appropriate
>>    certificate.  Unknown parameters MUST be ignored.
>
>
> Do we need to be more specific? Is there something that could be
> standardized here?

I thought about that.  Maybe someone else can do the definition.  For
instance, see Henry's use case and my response there.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email