IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Ohttp] Discovery (no)

Thomas Mangin <thomas.mangin@exa.net.uk> Mon, 26 July 2021 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <thomas.mangin@exa.net.uk>
X-Original-To: ohttp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ohttp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354DF3A15B4 for <ohttp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=exa-net-uk.20150623.gappssmtp.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 6dNwLcU0Motu for <ohttp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB7843A15B6 for <ohttp@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id h14so15748297lfv.7 for <ohttp@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=exa-net-uk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=tcIDtykonlAeWhn1XPf4ngU311oOZJpWXS6XtHBpBcs=; b=YXgZNbvqfKnIIdtA7HLeqf3ujou1ycAuVdp3Qo/n/2ykdN0H0JDRbY3iAVrnalR1ZG TCq++t0k3bQ9xvSQUpGio+TJUSZwrPaAvqtVjLPobb++v8ZwhlNGWmrXgFR0FHZ3nkjp Xvp36fD3SkFrHG5FCfLVr7J26ncMqYN08TqYnxXmKYdEuB8S5jEVviXem7633kGyFh0C mqlDC47ohuDt11MOBu+URW5rraoYglPsh9KsEScRuMQGwig1F2ZxAoj4C3OBsLVvZ7cC iUPJiE2U2YMZm0Tn6ma/rnKZz9wXhH8/JP70Tk8ToM0y0y/AFMTk2CtPev6vF7wcUCdj xPKQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=tcIDtykonlAeWhn1XPf4ngU311oOZJpWXS6XtHBpBcs=; b=NaLXK1AoFachv5A4AGw6qqr8QzFgr9n7XIEuOQoZRVO/9n8nR0u0JZMrVq/Zkg9xXu iyKpTuf48/BZ/L2a3mZwyCOwx/dacbz2fFdMGlK2VCFr/WxM31Mduiqj/FhQX6HTJWoA 5xt1r+dy4HTT9VTMs54bPtPvbyf37ZsbB84KWxNLH2RAhLBmiw8GrFNZJ42M1Qj8SoP9 0uKQv3cd3evy58z/GGSy56nGcTvkPcf/zud4/Yo5XiUVSFSgTcZb4vd8YcGPqhUPeC8o U8hn09OfRy5UHldrJNAUVjuVndUR0nJ4/d1VBUciGSNZVwTq4bEl72PyNP+3v4h15Qq0 o3dQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ng8/tzmZI3jVSeFbWgP8aw4hvLmxfD9BWZUHDy2rvqKvP8sAW 4lE/KjvfH3pUPqf4TrEyTKUOKw06B1KtlmQnOgF/Lsy3MdZCAQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxIrUpAv7MfvflhD6hobXA/TIXJn+5PF9hk8+3glw4nw8G2ElHPS5+qnGKpRJP1t1HvHPwrXfwbnnVIfvlF9lg=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:132a:: with SMTP id x42mr3022903lfu.291.1627309303651; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Thomas Mangin <thomas.mangin@exa.net.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 15:21:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEm8Q12LUx42gYODFVBpLUd0UbwfAvfScDC5Wnm+jsmaB6osQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: ohttp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fbf5af05c80778c1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ohttp/WpffxmJAifOdu25U_OQ-GR9BUr4>
Subject: [Ohttp] Discovery (no)
X-BeenThere: ohttp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Oblivious HTTP <ohttp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ohttp>, <mailto:ohttp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ohttp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ohttp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ohttp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ohttp>, <mailto:ohttp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 14:21:50 -0000

Hello, I just found this mailing list/group and I am curious.

Mark makes a good point but it is possible to implement a HTTP proxy using
the HTTP specification, and the specification is for a protocol which can
work without proxy.

I am unclear on what this group intend to standardise if part of the
protocol is left undocumented: it will prevent interoperability and may
lead to multiple incompatible different key discovery mechanism and
therefore non-interroperable implementations.

If end-to-end interoperability is not an objective I am at loss as to why a
multi-stakeholder group is being created for this protocol.

Thomas Mangin

Operational and Technical Director
Exa Networks Limited

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email