draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt

Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> Wed, 10 February 2016 20:20 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 260CF1B2F6D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 12:20:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 0b5eOMQC1IfU for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 12:20:32 -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 2989A1AD0A7 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 12:20:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aTbC4-0000zN-Ve for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:16:57 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aTbC4-0000zN-Ve@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 <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1aTbBw-0000wq-LW for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:16:48 +0000
Received: from raoul.w3.org ([128.30.52.128]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1aTbBr-0002op-GF for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:16:47 +0000
Received: from homard.platy.net ([80.67.176.7] helo=[192.168.1.39]) by raoul.w3.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1aTbBq-00052k-PF for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:16:43 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160209074851.32332.24065.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 18:29:03 +0000
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:16:39 +0100
Message-Id: <20160209182822.C37A959F@welho-filter2.welho.com>
X-Name-Md5: efe3dad792d606410c9cc49cedaffc94
References: <20160209074851.32332.24065.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1, AWL=-2.135, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.242, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1aTbBr-0002op-GF 05ec369e4a107615e95d5b40999dd775
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20160209182822.C37A959F@welho-filter2.welho.com>
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31069
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>

Tricky

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12#section-2.1

| 2.1. Host Authentication
| 
| 
|   Clients MUST have reasonable assurances that the alternative service
|   is under control of and valid for the whole origin.

I have impression that on absence of other protocol, this is mean to
forbid use plain HTTP/2 (ie "h2c"), because there is no "reasonable
assurance".

But is reader understanding that? There is examples which use "h2c".

This does not give that

|                                   However, if "other.example.com" is
|   offered with the "h2c" protocol, the client cannot use it, because
|   there is no mechanism in that protocol to establish the relationship
|   between the origin and the alternative.

Reader may think that there is "reasonable assurance" when hostname
is same.

There is 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12#section-9.1

| 9.1. Changing Ports
| 
| 
|   Using an alternative service implies accessing an origin's resources
|   on an alternative port, at a minimum.  An attacker that can inject
|   alternative services and listen at the advertised port is therefore
|   able to hijack an origin.  On certain servers, it is normal for users
|   to be able to control some personal pages available on a shared port,
|   and also to accept to requests on less-privileged ports.

But that part is confusing:

|   This risk is mitigated by the requirements in Section 2.1.

When requirement is "reasonable assurance" I think that reader
is confused.

"h2c" examples are

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12#section-3

|   The Alt-Svc field value can have multiple values:
|   
|   Alt-Svc: h2c=":8000", h2=":443"


https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12#section-3.1


|     HTTP/1.1 200 OK
|     Content-Type: text/html
|     Cache-Control: max-age=600
|     Age: 30
|     Alt-Svc: h2c=":8000"; ma=60


So my question is: Can reader understand this without
reading https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/ ?

( Or without reading that other protocol RFC which 
 gives reasonable assurance. )

/ Kari Hurtta