IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-06.txt> (Forwarded HTTP Extension) to Proposed Standard

Andreas Petersson <andreas@sbin.se> Wed, 11 July 2012 13:41 UTC

Return-Path: <andreas@sbin.se>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D789C21F868A; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 xAgLYFxp3XCL; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.opera.com (smtp.opera.com [213.236.208.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F1121F8610; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hetzer (oslo.jvpn.opera.com [213.236.208.46]) by smtp.opera.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id q6BDg3U0016854; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:42:03 GMT
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:41:58 +0200
From: Andreas Petersson <andreas@sbin.se>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-06.txt> (Forwarded HTTP Extension) to Proposed Standard
Message-ID: <20120711154158.60f6ecf0@hetzer>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120710081323.08c9bcf8@resistor.net>
References: <20120709162848.23418.51856.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <22B6DCC8-3BBF-4C64-876E-13ABFBE6CB2F@cdt.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120709134136.0ad9ae18@resistor.net> <20120710132825.5141babe@hetzer> <6.2.5.6.2.20120710081323.08c9bcf8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.24.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Sig_/24HaJ_VUi=WtQuc0yxNxZLi"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:41:37 -0000

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:43:43 -0700
SM <sm@resistor.net> wrote:
>>> In Section 6.3:
>>> 
>>>    'To distinguish the obfuscated identifier from other identifiers,
>>>     it MUST have a leading underscore "_".'
>>> 
>>> I suggest removing the requirement and using "can".  The implementer 
>>> can decide what to put in that field.  

>At 04:28 10-07-2012, Andreas Petersson wrote:
>>I think that will make parsing harder, and give no benefit at all.
> 
> It allows for more random bits of information.
> 

(adding context again)


Hi,

Can you substantiate a bit on this statement?
How is it "random bits of information" when the specifications says
that it MUST be underscore?

As far as I can think of, the only thing that it will tell is that the
implementation is following this specification.
So, on the contrary; the more "degrees of freedom" that is given to the
implementation, the easier it would be to do fingerprinting.


Cheers,
 Andreas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email