Re: Op-sec simplification

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 02 November 2016 00:58 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 93F561295CD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
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 KwDxAeMQTwVw for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:58:26 -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 F0D61127078 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c1jpI-0000mf-An for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 00:54:48 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 00:54:48 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c1jpI-0000mf-An@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1c1jpD-0000kG-EA for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 00:54:43 +0000
Received: from mail-qk0-f175.google.com ([209.85.220.175]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1c1jp7-0004ZM-Mo for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 00:54:38 +0000
Received: by mail-qk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id q130so903457qke.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
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=hyU3y+xXDn4XU6MEa3VzyloCRR5nbs3tSubsDnnmlG0=; b=vLSyMyL84UA4Tp/w1ZOpmwRIYDTBwE+CYkcPW0s9eKr0/zVtdulCeTzqlSzveFwlxP vZAN9GWRq6srqlj53NCzuRL1LKHlgCtdb6HgAmW5Yhaldekzv6/v0LBLjQLKjiCVL2ze FICseNM7WlA4c+UiZCa3pmMWfo2GrCHhdBCf1h289EJaT8ylfN0ZWtFdBfrU3vYdWgl/ 5MeMvrYhsmIcKcJWeEO3J5RBqhqfPYbGhRLC+zTb33UAEsPr9zJi3sr/L8ipeQGYYDn9 VvD+YniaRkjIp+CPmPfM9giZ0UTc7SgqDtNZDXxYY8tGOl7OcOROethoBPQPrcgfQjkG qyNw==
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=hyU3y+xXDn4XU6MEa3VzyloCRR5nbs3tSubsDnnmlG0=; b=fhx/OBQXXGgh6trSL5cWVq97i8ZeKjRrVxnPEDy0Kd6LZGP7IJmMXVdvD1eRxo+67s gJaCvyRFxP/q4Dp0JA74zlrPO4qSYlWjXcbeCMtYLIJY2Uk6RYc2z1u0peysn6hv80N1 wgg2Vbo6dEOphvqQ+taTg5mKdoKp+WPnJoHj1UApFNShZC482eXfgJZ1t3Yx/KLt/VPQ 19OtdM4IdtB6l8lHJFlbQD5US9m9cUCdGZbC0yd99Yfn2REaaEldCeCEfuAIDaotYkiB vJjPs/1cIPf7Rsf/IQwLaww02Z6fGEf95IrHbPF+9UKAgCzEI2cTxnrdfy3wCtNRYw4M XTWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcsBbF4BOagawg9CYq/mLF1IK4dv9dzoMS6na5Tpg5voDiCwoCyaX/cOrCN/LSFcC/RV9NazR0duh0Grw==
X-Received: by 10.55.184.68 with SMTP id i65mr901070qkf.5.1478048051519; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.85.7 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR03MB27087E46B10F0CD57CB7486187A10@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20161031053239.E9C6D12F5D@welho-filter3.welho.com> <842E817E-77E4-45E0-B5E3-D45F8D7AFA15@mnot.net> <CABkgnnVm2roXz5BiQeh5m2a_zcsfC3rFZ2pnoQ_m9k6b3K=58w@mail.gmail.com> <4CE68DCC-BE25-42DE-9247-4195103797EF@mnot.net> <201611010525.uA15P8V9009381@shell.siilo.fmi.fi> <CABkgnnWDqrn6Oqf62mPBqkp+0t9TvX1rO_Ge27LJW8EKmVjukA@mail.gmail.com> <BN6PR03MB27087E46B10F0CD57CB7486187A10@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:54:10 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVbuR8TFLLHjE90fxXm83Di68_sD8OTme1jE-3Qi6RnaQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Cc: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.220.175; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f175.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.088, 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1c1jp7-0004ZM-Mo 6d74325fc0667c7596a44e285e0f99d9
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Op-sec simplification
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnVbuR8TFLLHjE90fxXm83Di68_sD8OTme1jE-3Qi6RnaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32799
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 2 November 2016 at 04:33, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I think the case for TBD2 is that the client sent an "ambiguous" request -- that is, connecting over port 443 and not specifying http:// or https://, but just sending e.g. GET /resource.

I think my rationale could be restated more simply as: "there is
always a scheme, just that HTTP/1.1 requires that it be implicit".

BTW, Kari's example of an opportunistic-only server can be handled by 421.