Re: SETTINGS_MIXED_SCHEME_PERMITTED | Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-07.txt

Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Wed, 05 October 2016 08:58 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525EA129544 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 01:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.416
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.416 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sendgrid.me
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 jAdXh-JgjZ0v for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 01:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
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 87EFD127A91 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 01:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1brhxp-0005zm-Aa for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 08:54:09 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 08:54:09 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1brhxp-0005zm-Aa@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1brhxl-0005y9-Jm for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 08:54:05 +0000
Received: from o1.7nf.fshared.sendgrid.net ([167.89.55.67]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1brhxh-000183-2T for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 08:54:04 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sendgrid.me; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:subject:to:cc:content-type; s=smtpapi; bh=WuAXv5EH1gvl7zcnoGVSdye0c/E=; b=VKGmxZ3zfjl7p151qP j4/BYVVnCwYIA+LcV9L8cHbv2VXnj6MGphlGKUDilCdLo1YAFaqMJgTb7TOo9bb0 9UxeH7UwBwbTxV19usdIBd+/g52WUeVOKtxphZruYEMEEPgcRNpgu1vMkO4W8HN0 1RCRQoLwGXH9Msvh1Oy65y2r4=
Received: by filter0452p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0452p1mdw1.13246.57F4BF8C33 2016-10-05 08:53:32.931684957 +0000 UTC
Received: from mail-it0-f51.google.com (mail-it0-f51.google.com [209.85.214.51]) by ismtpd0005p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id hxKnZtjvQGCZS0DRawuYBw for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 08:53:32.863 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-it0-f51.google.com with SMTP id o19so160954754ito.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 01:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmxslPLlhU1aNDTkuyD9NT6DWj8F7Z/f22Be8z5WbBsdVdLuZMvi9bUMrbIGL2vhtE0ZVDOcgRa8W4LIg==
X-Received: by 10.107.150.195 with SMTP id y186mr9875721iod.8.1475657612568; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 01:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.113.65 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 01:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201610050451.u954pomK003643@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
References: <20161004160321.DFB4C111E5@welho-filter1.welho.com> <BN6PR03MB27082C2CF4DC3F8F82354FDE87C50@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <201610050451.u954pomK003643@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:53:32 +0200
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpRN_trGi23BpqUxmaLoLvom9+Yiew0GkNkhgwvqw4Bew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpRN_trGi23BpqUxmaLoLvom9+Yiew0GkNkhgwvqw4Bew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kari Hurtta <khurtta@welho.com>
Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140eaeeceaf5a053e1a4f0c
X-SG-EID: YLWet4rakcOTMHWvPPwWbcsiUJbN1FCn0PHYd/Uujh6A5f/HCiEPg7+doubxXygH0WIN/wirGbbyfY WaJ7+DIK0HbS2y2BtSwghAFqoAMpkeCO6PV++vhnEIUq8V4OucQX2w4b9eRuCLpAq4bNwv1OKkxtKH 0TGgoXerND+a91q2+iu4StwH6VV1ap3fATptBxiYwMZgs7kpNyf9tO9wsNaLnVKSdRgX5NTNRAn1XR o=
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=167.89.55.67; envelope-from=bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net; helo=o1.7nf.fshared.sendgrid.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.166, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.644, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_GREY=0.424, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1brhxh-000183-2T df3cb650241036f07a030354d88654c0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: SETTINGS_MIXED_SCHEME_PERMITTED | Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-07.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOdDvNpRN_trGi23BpqUxmaLoLvom9+Yiew0GkNkhgwvqw4Bew@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32480
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 I agree with Kari - this is per origin and not per connection..
having implemented the .wk thing I found it pretty workable and the server
side folks liked that this could be done with simply configuration to
reflect origin policy via headers and .wk rather than a protocol extension.

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
wrote:

> Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>om>: (Tue Oct  4 20:38:45 2016)
>
> > Taking a step back, what is the list of ports actually buying us now?
> The port can be obtained by the client from the Alt-Svc header.  The fact
> that the port is legitimate and not hijacked is verified by finding that it
> has a certificate.  What we're actually confirming is that the origin
> supports mixed schemes.  The lifetime is already present in the Alt-Svc
> advertisement, and I haven't heard a compelling reason to have a separate
> lifetime.  Should we just define SETTINGS_MIXED_SCHEME_PERMITTED and call
> it a day?
>
> Hmm.
>
> SETTINGS_MIXED_SCHEME_PERMITTED is per connection. I assume that HTTP/2
> server sends it on SETTINGS frame to HTTP/2 client (similar than what
> I contemplated for SETTINGS_WEBSOCKET_CAPABLE at
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2016OctDec/0033.html )
>
> http-opportunistic response tells here that given port for that
> origin handles http -scheme when sent via TLS.
>
> connection apply probably for several origins. TLS connection
> may be terminated by reverse proxy. And different origins
> are served by different processes or servers behind of
> reverse proxy.
>
> I guess that SETTINGS_MIXED_SCHEME_PERMITTED is too wide.
>
> "tls-ports"  should perhaps now be "mixed-scheme-listeners"
> giving [ "alternative-server:port" ].
>
> / Kari Hurtta
>
>
>