IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [POSH] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-miller-posh-01.txt

"Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com> Wed, 11 September 2013 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <mamille2@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: posh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: posh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC6121E8118 for <posh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
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 5zQYBzelo+t7 for <posh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7794621E80D8 for <posh@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7004; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1378910009; x=1380119609; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=uGBAQIXqOIrdZ9JW5JcWek6xdUGk/dGFk/K2MGF0aek=; b=Z140I8visOukbpRQph4wkizP4np8IPjMI5yjG38Wv47zxhOrcGy5MILk yFxwhoAiY5ECgRyFMt5ZCLeJdUlf0o49JMEP4sZvaKWmPy8wCvnXMKHuW 6DUkzSl8830IDkTyp/PwZryhIX3E/lM7dVqrpuvwfnq5Af0do0Q25gqgc M=;
X-Files: smime.p7s : 4136
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AisGADl+MFKtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABbEwEBgnI4UoJjv32BHBZ0giUBAQEDASdSBQsCAQgYCiQCMCUCBA4FCAaHbgYMw1sEjzkWGweDHYEAA5AlgS6YGIMigio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.90,884,1371081600"; d="p7s'?scan'208"; a="258397378"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Sep 2013 14:33:26 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8BEXPDZ013583 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:33:25 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.124]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:33:25 -0500
From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Thread-Topic: [POSH] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-miller-posh-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOq06BqiOzv4jP10izJJwc3Z9dDJnA52MAgAANkIA=
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:33:25 +0000
Message-ID: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EEF70B6@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com>
References: <20130906221429.28168.74635.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EEF0966@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <523073D4.3040101@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <523073D4.3040101@isode.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.123]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2382C451-FB88-40DF-9B44-BCB720FE59A7"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<posh@ietf.org>" <posh@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [POSH] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-miller-posh-01.txt
X-BeenThere: posh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion about PKIX Over Secure HTTP <posh.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/posh>, <mailto:posh-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/posh>
List-Post: <mailto:posh@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:posh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/posh>, <mailto:posh-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:33:35 -0000

On Sep 11, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
 wrote:

> On 06/09/2013 23:19, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote:
>> FYI, the latest draft incorporates just about all of the feedback we received as a result of the BoF, minus ASCII art; we'll see about that for the next version!
>> 
> I think this version is an improvement. I do however miss a clear statement on whether HTTP redirects need to be followed during resolution. Maybe I missed that.
> 


We probably removed too much while moving to the application-level referencing/redirect.  I'll talk to my co-author about it, but I suspect following some amount of HTTPS-level redirect is still going to be necessary to accommodate existing deployments (e.g., https://example.com/.well-known/... --> https://www.example.com/.well-known/... ).


- m&m

Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com >
Cisco Systems, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email