Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 31 January 2012 22:44 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 93A3D21F85CD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:44:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.800, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 xEIfxEaDURYM for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:44:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A58121F857A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:44:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1RsMQh-0001bM-Bl for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:43:59 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1RsMPt-0001Yx-QC for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:43:09 +0000
Received: from mail-bk0-f43.google.com ([209.85.214.43]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1RsMPr-00086Q-7q for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:43:09 +0000
Received: by bkbzv3 with SMTP id zv3so627024bkb.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:42:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=iIFY/YziETAoP0bGRZeks4EyN2sDj75h9YBC9t1kxpU=; b=ZewkrML0s7b67Jd67gMFfxqcramUNxHU+JfohQN/5Qdi0PHAPq6GNYZcVjOXilVa02 ZX8pO2sHSYkppF5Qw2Da70bNYYj0+se5k55LsYrYNayeJvhCB8nnoEsOaASp2KUC6pFd OCxaZAe9stsZrKB+V6z4Mfa5G08QnrZsBTbgI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.153.195 with SMTP id l3mr11761382bkw.123.1328049761514; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:42:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.241.81 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:42:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbeCuXbrp+w0wX1F-YyOFjKn7NDif2Ye+EaymVi3Nv7-qQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7RbeCuXbrp+w0wX1F-YyOFjKn7NDif2Ye+EaymVi3Nv7-qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:42:41 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXDMMy3CtVwfxQVrw-qd8zGfYxNWYsOy_=kGyLXVpKwoQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.43; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-bk0-f43.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: 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: maggie.w3.org 1RsMPr-00086Q-7q d4af36f93abd6cdd6dcf9492aad9c2e7
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnXDMMy3CtVwfxQVrw-qd8zGfYxNWYsOy_=kGyLXVpKwoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/12283
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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1RsMQh-0001bM-Bl@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:43:59 +0000

I have only one real problem with the document as it stands.

Though the document requires that new preferences describe security
considerations, security considerations for the preferences included
are non-existent.  At a minimum, something needs to be said about the
security properties of the included preferences.

I suspect that the story is, in general:

A server could incur greater costs in attempting to comply with a
particular preference (for instance, the cost of providing a
representation in a response that would not ordinarily contain one; or
the commitment of resources necessary to track state for an
asynchronous response).  Unconditional compliance from a server could
allow the use of preferences for denial of service.  A server can
ignore an expressed preference to avoid expending resources that it
does not wish to commit.

--Martin

On 31 January 2012 13:28, James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just posted an update for the HTTP Prefer Header altering the
> intended status from "Informational" to "Standards Track". No
> additional changes were made. As I have not received any further
> technical input on the specification, I am issuing an *Informal* Last
> Call for comments before I request that it be kicked up the chain for
> review.
>
> Mark Nottingham has agreed to serve as the document shepherd for
> helping to move it forward.
>
> Current Draft: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-11.txt
>
> - James
>