IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Sec-Scheme request header?

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 13 April 2016 13:58 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 A548112D9F1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.017
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.017 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_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, 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 MtiKEcHHaf50 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:58:30 -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 7A41612E202 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aqLEp-000643-Ie for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:53:47 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:53:47 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aqLEp-000643-Ie@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 <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1aqLEl-00063M-VU for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:53:43 +0000
Received: from mail-io0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1aqLEk-0000Fe-K6 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:53:43 +0000
Received: by mail-io0-f173.google.com with SMTP id o126so70744012iod.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=db/BK1xrUYSyhGvQ0imlU6jhFMODl9RV8TUmFyAH+SE=; b=cZY1yIqNcVI+ive5TSyNEyyGcsyWHgw2JrdJcDV//VdtHA+Ud/wj4Rv7dLQY9pD+PE HyC4YiPYqvfy3We1m4w+kf8ki8lExYXGfOQZdKfw2uW7d+Qzgkdi2VFM9d14QkxW5nPY D3TBswGZ4WEjqZG/rhAhij0MCzXWlyPnwhRpN6D/h2UFCbuI/syKvTY6Aq7efS+6CpMe hCPQjzr3T80qdtp9PVIRAO1jWcykmANDA8hoeiMuGScmp6tFseNp6xL9gFee8O4jARoA qOGLVAw9tgbukYCEBdATlji8lwaCCvq8j+CQxZ6Z1ccfu97DD7KtFACwMuNSV68IsQR2 It8g==
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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=db/BK1xrUYSyhGvQ0imlU6jhFMODl9RV8TUmFyAH+SE=; b=OLFDLazicHUo2xJ5bvQ8NmxG6QbDp0BEDgaV7jbVdGZS50ZXCTLBb7PeqkU/XjFIZB G61hlETqg33sxwz8NLiSP7vWTOvQUH6K8BxGs5L2lEhEJKW9kEZ3iWs266L6RVIQLa+1 AvIBMdJfaAIa/xr+lmUagxrrXC4K1srjE8bbrCyIPlXeZbQXN0bWFj6n7TX2v/OcfLYH Gk3JeDLI4nC4y52osEOCh7VwiPdtY/42dhMKuF4EJ3vRB0l8LvFgYfZRR12VOK6bpRcb BHWYhajw6u5hkNIwdxsyqIfJutKgakKrgMU5yGlHJeqTeD/Mgik7So8sVAde62YS3dG4 CNuw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXRhuF3Cnbnb7wtUjBshOul7uUr4sSlRy3jZiITnW2ZUpFCVJ+fsVyQccp3Vrydm5m6HyPFnBJhYxYRlg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.161.140 with SMTP id k134mr10730481ioe.190.1460555596575; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.43.5 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNrZuDHBLcMeKNhCMewi1zKOAnUt-CY9Cdh4vgi-CjcVAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ED1304AC-126B-486B-A58D-81D24C8F5C06@mnot.net> <CAKXHy=f=499HWYurEsTodjrJr6rR7DBkcFiVwmJGE0ogYFPAaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNrZuDHBLcMeKNhCMewi1zKOAnUt-CY9Cdh4vgi-CjcVAg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:53:16 -0300
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUxh=Anv3HjCMo9nhggmmTz8G+Mc2WHLtugBrdb1Jppzw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Cc: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.223.173; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-io0-f173.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.834, 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1aqLEk-0000Fe-K6 944cfebe9a8608a57ed905abcb5035c2
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Sec-Scheme request header?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnUxh=Anv3HjCMo9nhggmmTz8G+Mc2WHLtugBrdb1Jppzw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31439
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 13 April 2016 at 10:41, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> wrote:
> I think we were discussing the general milieu of request routing complexity
> (421, coalescing, alt-svc, etc..).. and how the scheme was the one part of
> the origin that isn't always available to the final consumer of the request
> whether that is because it is h1 and not in the request at all, or whether
> it is because in h2 it is carried in a transport level colon header..


Mark suggested that all existing places that carry a scheme might end
up being eroded, by virtue of them being known to intermediaries and
stacks and the like.  For example, most server software gently
converts absolute URIs into a bare path (sometimes ignoring the
authority part, IIRC).

The Sec-Scheme idea was a way of getting an unequivocal signal from
the client to the code serving a resource without all that mess
getting in the way.

Why this wouldn't also be eroded in the same way is down to freshness.
Next time, we'll try Sec-NoIMeanIt-Scheme. </snark>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email