Re: site-wide headers

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Sat, 01 October 2016 07:32 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 9481912B057 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 00:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.837
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.837 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, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, 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 Z10Ti9NXx61j for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 00:32:32 -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 D363412B051 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 00:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bqEi4-0003hy-J7 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 07:27:48 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 07:27:48 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bqEi4-0003hy-J7@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) 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 1bqEi0-0003gy-VB for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 07:27:45 +0000
Received: from mail-qt0-f182.google.com ([209.85.216.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1bqEhw-00011E-Ii for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 07:27:44 +0000
Received: by mail-qt0-f182.google.com with SMTP id f6so5720844qtd.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 00:27:20 -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=TFoJWA2kQeSBgd5pdVCatTu4gMv3meu7CzPbpOPgA78=; b=siG+ifRDe4C67ZfwvbXkLXexPCqXOf7iut9Yb7GJUAoOEheky7I31u8JmaM81BWQJ/ hHYMxD3/A8EdLdwPwiyUxsI09hg0kTxU3Qn5G5wjlRQBzIr4ev0Y75DAWxcys3P1rSEF OUWqV4NXVQ3W/I/5Joucgx1/F3ntIXAPrwNuQ1Wq6uY+6rZvFjUMkGhYeW+Mm880YOaN zQDYTgthzlIBb2dVt597jx/BRLuVUcA5ohVXJsk9ALRb9DDOxd2Jc2a7azIh50Yv5v6B bau2T6BqhL9XBvMr+iPNi0CKzpbPr55aPE8QYtrwEu0+x5fSZrs5AwR62UvlNZj+Takc PC6A==
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=TFoJWA2kQeSBgd5pdVCatTu4gMv3meu7CzPbpOPgA78=; b=OgQhvPGjsYyJpOJfgN1gRWKJfGchU+ZgcaB9oqvEx8ShETBX4qvklq+6UdFwQpdJjR +CUZ+Dxgxg2126QCFDNsWBdnWgu786dk3Kakm0fVJWdZKHAjmoM2SQdyShdV5Nb/mjxQ xBtgIPg5iF27HiBB9A1y+c4VsHWE+NkvUQp84u7wQDHIDeu3bZtiou+pk8Nw7z9mW3ZT EtuT8qG/JzSP6gSFAEDwtIFcU9mXdvLvxVRWX6LL0GzQeS7QYlXvDmOecN4hHVwguX42 gil8QWkhzuhp2C8nJqLNJJXE/R+1UnokI1ytVG3SdkyHmVbRGyt/AUIG6sBZNXm7xe1a jxoQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmG33U5RNWBACvAjkmTDmCev5mVbziLErG+Df6HStkem6RPrvneQ1WtajJLExjkBPqXIUZt9MAUTeAomw==
X-Received: by 10.200.41.54 with SMTP id y51mr10565105qty.83.1475306834603; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 00:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.22.146 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 00:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20161001061255.GA31660@1wt.eu>
References: <CABkgnnWDys91VF5xCBPc4+J8JQnj75VsGoLVkpXxM60egYd5GQ@mail.gmail.com> <20161001061255.GA31660@1wt.eu>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 17:27:14 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUtJU1uD2LM1UArH2Tr1s6DnS0_snuK2fcqBpoi0OWEJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: 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=209.85.216.182; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-qt0-f182.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.082, 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_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bqEhw-00011E-Ii e109fa170a31da30ee8082ccbd04c1d0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: site-wide headers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnUtJU1uD2LM1UArH2Tr1s6DnS0_snuK2fcqBpoi0OWEJA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32434
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>

I agree that this is a benefit that it picks up all the warts and
wrinkles that come with using HTTP header fields.  I just wanted to
make clear that this isn't 100% positive.

On 1 October 2016 at 16:12, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 09:00:05PM +1000, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-site-wide-headers-00)
>>
>> I like this approach because it is more obviously composable into an
>> existing system at the consuming end.  I especially like that the
>> format is without opinion about its contents.  That makes it quite
>> powerful.
>>
>> I dislike this approach (in contrast to the JSON-based
>> origin-policy[1]) because it uses header fields.  Of course that makes
>> it better suited to HTTP.
>
> In fact that's what I find powerful here. I know *many* places where
> these headers are set by the front reverse-proxy, simply because it
> ensures that they're uniform across all the servers. But it also
> happens that there are exceptions (eg: for static some servers or
> certain unrelated applications). With this mechanism, there's almost
> nothing to change in the way it works. The admin will just have to
> add "HS" to the responses instead of adding all these header fields,
> when the reverse-proxy notices that the client provided the valid SM
> field. And it also ensures the proxy an simply remove HS: and replace
> it with all appropriate headers when it comes from a server where it's
> not appropriate at all (you know, some application developers like to
> copy-paste when they don't know).
>
> So in fact, it supports everything already supported today but the
> smarter way. It's really nice in my opinion.
>
> Cheers,
> Willy