Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 10 July 2013 11:35 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 108FC21F9D56 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 04:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 jU9+AKcI+x7E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 04:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F23C21F9349 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 04:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Uwsem-0006hj-JS for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:34:00 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:34:00 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Uwsem-0006hj-JS@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1Uwsed-0006gv-OM for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:33:51 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UwseZ-0008Tu-3b for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:33:51 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.103] ([217.91.35.233]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MIzGn-1UuPnr1Udd-002V5A; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:33:19 +0200
Message-ID: <51DD4678.8030407@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:33:12 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
CC: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <3072E3B4-63B4-4DFB-AFD8-08EE6407C6FB@apple.com> <CABkgnnWexuQb9vZPudJTJ+Gk0LAtcunWG1fThrk3Y_Eo9mDv=A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+pLO_gzNTpTabeuXE7SE+J8Bnx7ky3bnxdKLxB5A-DiAS01Uw@mail.gmail.com> <A5F07EB0-894D-4D70-B3F1-925AF19AC573@apple.com> <CA+pLO_jL63qxtFFvC=JN5iJSr2_B8KkBftX9K19M0x3qV7HOLw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+pLO_jL63qxtFFvC=JN5iJSr2_B8KkBftX9K19M0x3qV7HOLw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:sZhdI3UwadP+UL5iTp4JAYtRTXtCoT1YGy5KMzD85Izn8XdiCZ+ HJjZWBiXJ51wy2GGxz4TN9HDWyNg7zQLOwBbFh3IZ08dIGU5JWMuFyTrd26Fjgc1OdG1Azp EpB/Y+KGVF51HUEc+wv7rPg1r9sr9fyp5gN+UYlkKIvQ9spuwy0C/F/IYzTYlb80U7K8JWH Mxk8sgP+3PrY96NFGXD7g==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.15; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.450, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UwseZ-0008Tu-3b ae3b0b405a58ee9d436cb1b31d6e7b37
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51DD4678.8030407@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18668
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 2013-07-09 22:59, Jeff Pinner wrote: > I am all for adding text to the "Additional HTTP > Requirements/Considerations" sections that discuss how to upgrade from > HTTP/1.1 to HTTP/2.0, including what to do about how to handle specific > headers, Expect and Content-Length / Transfer-Encoding included. This > would be useful not just to implementers migrating to HTTP/2.0 but also > to proxies that upgrade/downgrade the protocol version. > > That being said, the requirements around Message Length in HTTP/1.1 are > non-trivial and given that we want to support interoperability, I'd like > to minimize adding additional requirements (especially those with > conflicting semantics) in the HTTP/2.0 spec. > > P.S. the httpbis messaging draft states: > > If a message is received with both a Transfer-Encoding and a > Content-Length header field, the Transfer-Encoding overrides the > Content-Length. Such a message might indicate an attempt to > perform request or response smuggling (bypass of security-related > checks on message routing or content) and thus ought to be > handled as an error. A sender MUST remove the received Content- > Length field prior to forwarding such a message downstream. > > > it would be nice to strengthen that language so that it matches the new HTTP/2.0 requirement. > ... My 2 cents: HTTPbis says what it says based on a long discussion of the topic. IMHO simply saying "should be aligned with whatever 2.0 says" is not sufficient to change that. Best regards, Julian
- Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04 Michael Sweet
- Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04 Martin Thomson
- Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04 Jeff Pinner
- Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04 Michael Sweet
- Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04 Michael Sweet
- Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04 Jeff Pinner
- Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04 Julian Reschke
- Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04 Jeff Pinner
- Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04 Julian Reschke
- Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04 Martin Thomson