Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 20 August 2014 01:15 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 A76EB1A0739 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.57
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, 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 42Yi7EGharZU for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 951611A06D9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XJuSv-000629-Cf for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 01:13:29 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 01:13:29 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XJuSv-000629-Cf@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XJuSd-0005sw-Ga for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 01:13:11 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XJuSc-0005PU-IM for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 01:13:11 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.55] (unknown [118.209.123.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E9D022E1F3; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 21:12:45 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAH_y2NGivMoS_WSudKKM4A=Jnr6bKneJZ5zuTmWrQm=XESYdYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:12:39 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6F9EE13B-1791-4010-8953-3172A57AC172@mnot.net>
References: <20140818233839.23251.81316.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <858FBAA8-F0D5-43A0-A621-7D504AB3327A@mnot.net> <CAH_y2NEekpgDNO+OsDELarcSi3nn72gHb98L9R66TntcD9bUiQ@mail.gmail.com> <3859D490-6B6E-4C7D-A3AF-9F1CF6F69045@mnot.net> <CAH_y2NGivMoS_WSudKKM4A=Jnr6bKneJZ5zuTmWrQm=XESYdYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.061, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XJuSc-0005PU-IM ad4f04b5b49b867fd61dff1cce7378f4
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/6F9EE13B-1791-4010-8953-3172A57AC172@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26673
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>

On 20 Aug 2014, at 11:09 am, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

> 
> Mark,
> 
> thanks for those links.
> 
> I think the document itself needs to be a bit stronger on the intended usage of the header.  Currently it reads that this header field can be sent by a client and that it can be ignored by the proxy.

That's the intent.

> Perhaps it should be little bit stronger and say that a proxy MAY (SHOULD?) consider this header when deciding to create a tunnel or not.

We can't retroactively require proxies to pay attention to a header; it's up to them. This header is merely enabling those proxies who choose to act upon the header. 

(Yes, that corresponds to MAY, but we try to avoid overusing it, else our documents get filled with MAYs. It's not really a conformance requirement, it's just a statement.)

Cheers,


> 
> cheers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 20 August 2014 10:45, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> Greg,
> 
> See:
>   https://httpwg.github.io/wg-materials/ietf90/IETF90_draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol.pdf
>   https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/gh-pages/ietf90/minutes.md#draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> On 20 Aug 2014, at 10:40 am, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
> 
> > Mark,
> >
> > Is there a specific use-case motivating this additional header?   ie are there situations that a proxy can use this to do more than just log/debug a tunnel?
> >
> > I'm certainly not opposed to having the additional information that this header provides, but I'd like to know what advantage there is for a client to include the header.  If there is none, then it is not likely to be sent.
> >
> > cheers
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
> > http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
> > http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> 
> http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
> http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/