Re: p7: forwarding Proxy-*

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 30 April 2013 02:05 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 37A1321F9BED for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.613
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.613 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.314, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_SHOP=2.3, 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 v+4o93NwTv0H for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 410A321F9BE9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UWzwf-00048A-2Y for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:05:29 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:05:29 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UWzwf-00048A-2Y@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UWzwW-00047R-2I for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:05:20 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UWzwV-0006b6-CX for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:05:20 +0000
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44DAE509B5; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:04:56 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <9E71BAB0-0D88-4B6E-B1A1-AA228349E3CA@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:04:53 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <27ED39F0-723C-4358-9A22-4AAEEC1BA912@mnot.net>
References: <76583F5C-A175-42EA-B0A0-CB5663A5E3AC@mnot.net> <9E71BAB0-0D88-4B6E-B1A1-AA228349E3CA@gbiv.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.380, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UWzwV-0006b6-CX 0a6ef66609faf7f2ed0baa926ad71d82
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p7: forwarding Proxy-*
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/27ED39F0-723C-4358-9A22-4AAEEC1BA912@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17697
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>

Well, they're listed as hop-by-hop in 2616, and AFAICT we haven't explicitly discussed changing that.

Are you saying that they shouldn't be included in Connection, ever?


On 30/04/2013, at 11:59 AM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>; wrote:

> That would be incorrect (and is not editorial).  The Proxy-Auth
> fields are forwarded until consumed, not hop-by-hop.
> 
> ....Roy
> 
> On Apr 29, 2013, at 6:38 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> (editorial) 
>> 
>> p7 4.2 says:
>> 
>>> Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field applies only to the current connection, and intermediaries should not forward it to downstream clients. However, an intermediate proxy might need to obtain its own credentials by requesting them from the downstream client, which in some circumstances will appear as if the proxy is forwarding the Proxy-Authenticate header field.
>> 
>> and 4.3 says:
>> 
>>> Unlike Authorization, the Proxy-Authorization header field applies only to the next outbound proxy that demanded authentication using the Proxy-Authenticate field. When multiple proxies are used in a chain, the Proxy-Authorization header field is consumed by the first outbound proxy that was expecting to receive credentials. A proxy may relay the credentials from the client request to the next proxy if that is the mechanism by which the proxies cooperatively authenticate a given request.
>> 
>> 
>> However, neither says that the header needs to be listed in the Connection header; i.e. that it's hop-by-hop, as per RFC2616 13.5.1. If you recall, we removed the explicit list of hop-by-hop headers, opting to say that they needed to be listed in Connection, because doing so was causing confusion. However, we haven't actually specified that for these two headers.
>> 
>> Recommend language like this:
>> 
>> """
>> Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field applies only to the current connection, and thus MUST be listed in the Connection header field [ref], so that it is consumed on the next hop. Note that an intermediate proxy might need to obtain its own credentials by requesting them from the downstream client, which in some circumstances will appear as if the proxy is forwarding the Proxy-Authenticate header field.
>> """
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/