Re: ORIGIN - suggested changes

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 02 February 2017 01:33 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 6DE87129588 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:33:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 WD7aFRzSiZQu for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:33:33 -0800 (PST)
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 226EF129617 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:33:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cZ6FE-0006V2-29 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 01:31:28 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 01:31:28 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cZ6FE-0006V2-29@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1cZ6FA-0006O0-DH for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 01:31:24 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1cZ6F2-0000X2-Pj for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 01:31:17 +0000
Received: from [192.168.3.104] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC04622E1FA; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 20:30:53 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnX26M2P1Kp-PxPDzREZGp0nGfuJubgTqrs9Hr7n8ttqdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 12:30:51 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <373E9285-B023-4D42-A749-368649E34252@mnot.net>
References: <C3CCA267-F5B5-4827-AC27-9853BDADACDE@mnot.net> <CABkgnnWaN6Kaq28=a+At_YQcZmG_o0-VRMAWBABzdLz-RBxxPA@mail.gmail.com> <5D2EB826-204B-44FC-AB42-B0BBECF9AE62@mnot.net> <CABkgnnX26M2P1Kp-PxPDzREZGp0nGfuJubgTqrs9Hr7n8ttqdA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.858, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cZ6F2-0000X2-Pj e961e964c6b1c802f269444bb48c4d7e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ORIGIN - suggested changes
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/373E9285-B023-4D42-A749-368649E34252@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33423
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 2 Feb 2017, at 12:23 pm, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 2 February 2017 at 10:12, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> I don't buy the argument that removal itself adds complexity. Implementations already need to remember what origins they received a 421 for, so they already have the concept of origin set removal.
> 
> Well, you just established why it might be unnecessary.  The gain here
> is in the client not sending a request to the wrong place.  But if
> this is rare enough, then that cost is probably bearable.

Right, but the whole point of ORIGIN is to avoid those situations. 


> The "everything except those" case doesn't concern me that much.
>  Iknow it's relatively common, but it is fairly rare that the set of
> origins that are used is not easily enumerable, or incrementally
> discoverable.

Spoken like a true browser vendor :) 

It'd be good to get a bit more data here from server-side folks. Anyone share this concern? I note that Nick seems to be OK with it.

Cheers,

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