IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: chunk-extensions

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sat, 14 September 2013 15:57 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 8471321E8098 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 08:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, 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 1WJduusXmtrh for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 08:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45A6011E81E1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 08:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1VKsDv-0007iF-4R for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 15:57:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 15:57:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1VKsDv-0007iF-4R@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 1VKsDh-0007fj-93 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 15:57:13 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1VKsDg-0002RK-2b for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 15:57:13 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.117] ([93.217.108.110]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MTBsk-1VTDgJ2Hwc-00S3Ny for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:56:45 +0200
Message-ID: <5234873A.2060001@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:56:42 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <B3EED2F3-AD15-442F-B54E-81940CF4176B@mnot.net> <AF84D601-425D-42C2-8B23-5060AE18B899@gbiv.com> <7FC7097F-F635-4985-B1B3-91EBBA7E9B7E@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <7FC7097F-F635-4985-B1B3-91EBBA7E9B7E@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:AOlFmG8Timb+Q8rRS6MnEoM5cn2dw8aYhymq9ulxJLATVKT8bi4 +gF4efXAxl0egjslaQDwhutiejroitlpX+5HC7L0x59XrmlKbXxl3Paz+0F3RUZn6QgGycw 8qK60MjPHNPaOcqAd2A3pdvxi1g9guFtO63PBpBaIfMwNTFndumW3QDdLSj6duE1n9LR/k7 LxBUEokMwRcTnsIxdbOqw==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.20; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.390, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1VKsDg-0002RK-2b 779e5c6cee589c3859974cbf386edaa0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: chunk-extensions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5234873A.2060001@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/19636
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 2013-09-14 01:54, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> I've considered using them for a few things over the years. However, two things always stopped me; they aren't accommodated by Apis, and they aren't guaranteed to transit a hop.
>
> For the breach attacks, I don't think deprecating them harms things, since you can still sen them; in these mitigations, the payload / semantics don't matter, as long as something is there.

You can send them, but you'd violate a "SHOULD NOT".

If we believe using them is ok (and you made it sound like that), we 
consequently should back out the change to deprecate it 
(<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1535#file1>)

> Personally, I'm ok either way; the important thing is to document their behavior / limitations. Deprecation I one way to do that, but we could do it in prose too.
> ...

What exactly does not to be documented?

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email