Re: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code-00.txt

Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> Mon, 14 November 2016 06:01 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 16EC61295D1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:01:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ElH1DUDj-WQ6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:01:29 -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 A6E2D1294AD for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:01:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c6AGi-0002TQ-42 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 05:57:24 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 05:57:24 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c6AGi-0002TQ-42@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <kazuhooku@gmail.com>) id 1c6AGc-0002SC-E3 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 05:57:18 +0000
Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <kazuhooku@gmail.com>) id 1c6AGW-0006Tb-IC for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 05:57:13 +0000
Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id a197so78425003wmd.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 21:56:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9BHo83YGB4p17WUVZZEfytswpXbxcFc4yBdc/MtZxNc=; b=aVtiDQwRLTgL9iTSjrqA1vzIW4Yi4OSNf4H9O3ksHmouMFjKh6cGQTjxLyCgAc7QjM n5fjcXmk5xouHi21EMwXG+kGv+Br6iXKKqqF/tcaZznB18Mw9vULX7GXlBOpjuK1mr0u lpwHAIj4hP9btruHBu1egHY9NSYNRHgba+heyUW8prhKMO05bmRnrrBC/pd8LIf90FpT QcYAl9cMz3B9NUs2t7NJcb2kZz5mI0KZRCzFtNBhUEtIQLofiM0biUVqOReo0IxuI3LJ f36sG60AaVyAI1tyX93kUaZfpm0rzcjRDuOHsANejyhrLuLbvGlj5MlZUQHuNI94W3Rx dVKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9BHo83YGB4p17WUVZZEfytswpXbxcFc4yBdc/MtZxNc=; b=IW6bHX/sIPHslnD20qX1IogJ6N9KZ77sfmogETu/gDJAkcHoF5sJwRC9SsZgxWnQDn 45XR2BhmVFQo6h60vQR2FQRL2dDUROlVesKt0UmE/eBo6eyAJ1eb0gcGxL5bO6gwbRQl NH4p6XEnL3Tq+7h83TsBfSOgq76k4sSsE+1i+MC27RsRZVozn4EslXgWWxSoSUb/DdVn QbFp+ij/q3wcKbfaDvjQiBTSOGFzO5WpvUC5986ShJWQ0p/RkXL16KIDOU67MdP5z/RQ QABEjFUm9vhN9cRTuUVJNHCan9xwC+fWxNQ4BkT+6W0Sso8jig0Ztn0P5mrja1SLOXl5 jb/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngveUSVFG9jsrIj5455Nm9v/Hcyeljhzl8ye5+uG7MzCkp5wRznVyPZXrmGL9SufSXKp9qLM0ifza4+4CBw==
X-Received: by 10.194.116.66 with SMTP id ju2mr16334404wjb.223.1479103006058; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 21:56:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.32.1 with HTTP; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 21:56:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <aff70715-5424-59d7-bec5-29e9f9eb889e@gmx.de>
References: <147792294052.32397.15544665152412530374.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CANatvzwm_T-HW0yT1MAWEUrfw5OAVkmAZe890575qg8HuU9Z_Q@mail.gmail.com> <86447165-100C-407D-8512-A32F93B11BBA@lukasa.co.uk> <c7b33b3d-8cab-5621-2c74-14e21a5a3885@gmx.de> <4178648b-081f-6a85-ce06-2037c946993c@gmx.de> <5aea6698-ec53-f670-63a7-69e13f3d9a60@gmx.de> <a4cbb6f0-caa8-8adc-47dd-115d74deedd3@measurement-factory.com> <CANatvzy+D3ccYsuCWQu9UZc4_DVbAFK-Dt0xf=WezJutz4oM4A@mail.gmail.com> <aff70715-5424-59d7-bec5-29e9f9eb889e@gmx.de>
From: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:56:44 +0900
Message-ID: <CANatvzzhic6_p98pnXq5ZYO4_UOSLaBVn5E_q-1q7dO_7W+WyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.50; envelope-from=kazuhooku@gmail.com; helo=mail-wm0-f50.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.984, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1c6AGW-0006Tb-IC 23fbd354e3dcaa5b93f52e07792278ea
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code-00.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CANatvzzhic6_p98pnXq5ZYO4_UOSLaBVn5E_q-1q7dO_7W+WyA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32887
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>

2016-11-14 13:48 GMT+09:00 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>de>:
> On 2016-11-13 13:36, Kazuho Oku wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> I do not have a strong preference on whether if we should try to
>> rescue the broken implementations, but to me your report is
>> interesting in the fact that it shows the bounds of using header-based
>> negotiation to work-around such implementations.
>>
>> HTTP headers are end-to-end by default. Therefore a request header for
>> negotiating the use of 103 would go through an intermediary incapable
>> of handling 1xx correctly. We might consider designating the header
>> used for negotiation as a hop-by-hop header, but I'd be scared of
>> using a new token to the connection header (for interoperability
>> issues).
>>
>> In other words, using header-based negotiation for Early Hints only
>> limitedly improves interoperability.
>> ...
>
>
> ...but then, requiring HTTPS (in theory eliminating broken middle boxes)
> would, right?

Yes.

However, I would expect that in many (if not most) cases a web
application server running behind of a reverse proxy (or a CDN edge
server) to generate 103 response.

In such deployment, TLS gets terminated by the reverse proxy. So even
if a client and an application server negotiated the use of 103, we
would see issues if the reverse proxy between the two was broken.

So to me, it seems like that the conservative approach would be to
only send 103 over HTTP/2 or to a peer that is known to handle it
correctly (e.g. CDN edge server converting 103 LRP to H2 push).

> Best regards, Julian


-- 
Kazuho Oku