IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt

Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> Thu, 11 February 2016 05:16 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 69B531A8F38 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:16:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.003 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=-0.001, 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 6ftQq1zt-yJE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:16:29 -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 9F6DE1A8F3D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:16:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aTjYO-0004Cj-Os for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 05:12:32 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 05:12:32 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aTjYO-0004Cj-Os@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 <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1aTjYG-0004Bt-6N for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 05:12:24 +0000
Received: from mail-bl2on0118.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([65.55.169.118] helo=na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1aTjYB-0005R4-Bp for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 05:12:22 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=2F6Am89CROstMHRj5IkF/trz8teafSw3KCDmff387xE=; b=PzpBtBWNKXhLA7IIicbhjJ6P5iPa8hTfHhyPts05VB1QMY2Vt9E5Ocv7Jm66+ARTVW7N3l3i0n400Rwe2l0wwIgZi1whBcvzx8k/JBZZPMjXK0ia0qZS9CIm/OhAIi8x75WxSYckpLXvlul94dIWxjzvTSU+Rm6e79vq5eC7Zps=
Received: from CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.163.16.28) by CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.163.16.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.403.16; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 05:11:51 +0000
Received: from CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.16.28]) by CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.16.28]) with mapi id 15.01.0403.017; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 05:11:51 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRY7RNrATcPP2h00ilsne4qbLwW58k8zMAgADZVQCAAHOgAIAADRcQ
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 05:11:51 +0000
Message-ID: <CY1PR03MB137422D6387237B51D2DCB4487A80@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20160209074851.32332.24065.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20160209182822.C37A959F@welho-filter2.welho.com> <B7164F24-DDA1-4753-8A8B-04809B1965FF@mnot.net> <CABkgnnVfZu5e1fOAOAgaxPR=mRS+xv+oDFN1gHRUFamEk_=VtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CY1PR03MB1374F3513049DBCB19D36BF287D70@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <56BC0C76.7040202@treenet.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <56BC0C76.7040202@treenet.co.nz>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: treenet.co.nz; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;treenet.co.nz; dmarc=none action=none header.from=microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [2601:600:8300:3b9a:ac79:cad1:6214:2b87]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 8805108c-f92a-4954-c079-08d332a1d9ed
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY1PR03MB1374; 5:1Adhsqc87u53/z4ZDB+JkdeeWtGf84Ikfm2XYjlcfqvOYzdn7YZaM3Qxj77VFdK9wrKoH3nm9KN9G3M4ZiaqIrx4Fb28r5e3Z4dpyIKIqwxBDLncDNyVrK6UACctEvKmY+wj8vPmR5+ujBmyaI83Qg==; 24:dqOBd8eeB83Xut1TSSJoOriflRNC6/m00/yhtXX9XPXUObEoi4I6TQK3HAlSvGUGOSTJJRZdsb/KZHz5Qirr5nYDxUGsUkWd6Hj7N9vyDfU=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR03MB1374;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY1PR03MB1374411145E4352D4FB628A487A80@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(61426038)(61427038); SRVR:CY1PR03MB1374; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY1PR03MB1374;
x-forefront-prvs: 08497C3D99
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377454003)(24454002)(479174004)(13464003)(107886002)(87936001)(10290500002)(5004730100002)(1096002)(561944003)(77096005)(5002640100001)(74316001)(54356999)(76176999)(189998001)(33656002)(2950100001)(50986999)(2900100001)(19580395003)(106116001)(92566002)(99286002)(3660700001)(19580405001)(10090500001)(5001770100001)(230783001)(3280700002)(102836003)(2906002)(6116002)(5003600100002)(586003)(5001960100002)(86362001)(5008740100001)(5005710100001)(86612001)(122556002)(40100003)(2501003)(76576001)(10400500002)(11100500001)(1220700001)(3826002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR03MB1374; H:CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 11 Feb 2016 05:11:51.4076 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR03MB1374
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=65.55.169.118; envelope-from=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com; helo=na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.748, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1aTjYB-0005R4-Bp 959a7d0b6fb244a24768fff63edfbc1c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CY1PR03MB137422D6387237B51D2DCB4487A80@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31074
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>

I think we're talking about two different scenarios.  I'm referring to same host + different port, which used to be allowed without TLS.  Allowing another host to serve the resource has (always?) required TLS, which means h2c just isn't a valid token for that scenario.

-----Original Message-----
From: Amos Jeffries [mailto:squid3@treenet.co.nz] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 8:22 PM
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt

On 11/02/2016 10:31 a.m., Mike Bishop wrote:
> I agree.  For example, if the proposal of using a .well-known URI to 
> delegate to an Alt-Svc gets traction and becomes an RFC, it could just 
> update Alt-Svc to define that as having assurance as well.
> 
> Note that h2c on the same port doesn't need Alt-Svc, since the
> Upgrade: header from the server is already defined.  So what we're 
> really talking about is h2c *on a different port*.  Honestly, I think 
> if we put it on a different port and publish an Alt-Svc pointing to 
> it, we might as well go direct (i.e. don't Upgrade from HTTP/1.1 on 
> the new connection), which would need a new token anyway.

Isn't that the point of Alt-Svc though? to have *both* servers able to deliver the resource, and to inform client of the non-usual alternative rather than the normal server always 302 redirecting.

Amos

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