Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] http: Allow unquoted tokens in Alt-Svc quic parameter (#3063)

Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com> Wed, 25 September 2019 13:24 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50625120815 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 06:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 QFefU7_U5zkf for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 06:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-21.smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7AD2120806 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 06:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-39ac79b.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-39ac79b.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.18.15]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9ADDA084F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 06:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 06:24:28 -0700
From: Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2FSGXVMSPJWI6UUMN3TCVRZEVBNHHB3JNFTE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3063/535020366@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3063@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3063@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] http: Allow unquoted tokens in Alt-Svc quic parameter (#3063)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d8b6a8cdb5dc_10443fe5f5ccd95c18717d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: LPardue
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/6XFXJMPslUgXLg3h9WwEOROSfIs>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 13:24:32 -0000

As I said elsewhere, the current text in draft-23 stems from a Structured Headers issue related to wanting to advertise multiple versions of QUIC.  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/281

Alt-Svc isn't a structured one but if it were (e.g. if someone wanted to write a generic Structured Header parser) then there was a danger that the rules preventing dictionary key repetition would have prevented an endpoint sending multiple `quic` parameters e.g. `Alt-svc: ":443"; quic=1; quic=1abadaba`.

To mitigate the risk, the quic parameter was changed to a DQUOTED comma-separated list as part of https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1093.

This issue addresses the correctness within the Alt-Svc spec but does it reopen the can related to Structured Headers?


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3063#issuecomment-535020366