Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header

James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Tue, 31 January 2012 23:36 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 1A2F321F84D9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:36:49 -0800 (PST)
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 lbmac9NFRbjH for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:36:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDCA21F84D7 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:36:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1RsNF6-0006xQ-1w for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:36:04 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1RsNEu-0006v5-KP for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:35:52 +0000
Received: from mail-bk0-f43.google.com ([209.85.214.43]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1RsNEn-00018o-OB for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:35:48 +0000
Received: by bkbzv3 with SMTP id zv3so672899bkb.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:35:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=slG6D6Iud3lTZFOYQ2EyQNxzbaf5jxwkwI7mo3tX6MA=; b=QH3txM2lAj1fG4KkhBVgR6nNIjZXsuTqUCFyNdYbMXNIsJgl8fLxaCG2vUilUdTd4+ O3MX+hSII1CyS5ODdXAPpUTZDPmUycs5epxilZGWiB7jDcQ1ELB8awqj4NmANo/S3nL3 E4WqoLKBJblQGvPw8vn/52sZnTnyRMykMM4kU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.205.141.76 with SMTP id jd12mr11742805bkc.42.1328052919634; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:35:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.33.86 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:35:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXDMMy3CtVwfxQVrw-qd8zGfYxNWYsOy_=kGyLXVpKwoQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7RbeCuXbrp+w0wX1F-YyOFjKn7NDif2Ye+EaymVi3Nv7-qQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXDMMy3CtVwfxQVrw-qd8zGfYxNWYsOy_=kGyLXVpKwoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:35:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7RbeN5Tkb5CAVBv+SUhYbzJJWhQb3G7mJupkxia8cfXzJKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.43; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-bk0-f43.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: 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
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1RsNEn-00018o-OB b383c62e314d039b7ec9c964528d2bc0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7RbeN5Tkb5CAVBv+SUhYbzJJWhQb3G7mJupkxia8cfXzJKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/12285
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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1RsNF6-0006xQ-1w@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:36:04 +0000

+1... good catch Martin. In general, the preferences as stated have
been intentionally designed to minimize potential security issues but
the resource allocation issue is definitely a potential risk. If you
don't mind, I'll likely adopt the text you suggest nearly verbatim.

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have only one real problem with the document as it stands.
>
> Though the document requires that new preferences describe security
> considerations, security considerations for the preferences included
> are non-existent.  At a minimum, something needs to be said about the
> security properties of the included preferences.
>
> I suspect that the story is, in general:
>
> A server could incur greater costs in attempting to comply with a
> particular preference (for instance, the cost of providing a
> representation in a response that would not ordinarily contain one; or
> the commitment of resources necessary to track state for an
> asynchronous response).  Unconditional compliance from a server could
> allow the use of preferences for denial of service.  A server can
> ignore an expressed preference to avoid expending resources that it
> does not wish to commit.
>
> --Martin
>
> On 31 January 2012 13:28, James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I just posted an update for the HTTP Prefer Header altering the
>> intended status from "Informational" to "Standards Track". No
>> additional changes were made. As I have not received any further
>> technical input on the specification, I am issuing an *Informal* Last
>> Call for comments before I request that it be kicked up the chain for
>> review.
>>
>> Mark Nottingham has agreed to serve as the document shepherd for
>> helping to move it forward.
>>
>> Current Draft: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-11.txt
>>
>> - James
>>