IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-04

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 10 June 2015 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC58C1B2BFA; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 2CJuVSwSFPas; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yh0-x236.google.com (mail-yh0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::236]) (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 08F301B2BDE; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhpn97 with SMTP id n97so26067277yhp.0; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XqoZ00EoZw0sBIOIoaP5pW9HXAstq6pkgV83LfDftZc=; b=JQMlw6pB8pMQSnDVOKuRNmzqZzxoDIaTyVN1D/w8vNoDN7iJ5dNGy9tD6cjq3JmlG/ dGtB7yNSzU86xYY6ilg5k0YVJot6odzbvbigrazf9yfYusUiKGahCWtpkxoPsjvFMBjU yf9PhqnDfoZAuaE0hsWGdwYQoMfbJkWn9lFWhBnuyHhQbc34M2XbpYUHz0Ydgrto1vuz uoG6T6aYEjWW+fdA7Iaixu3HDrxz+2ArinqfgqlpxiDqFXa/nAryfkE8Y1g0e7eS7pNN i5UTmU0vRqDgxE6RIgYdInvn4QTKbdVwrQFyezXyanmp0gC+NQzVoUKpMEXiLEWZXLEj 03lg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.129.36.14 with SMTP id k14mr7218044ywk.64.1433971719449; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.129.110.138 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5604BEA6-52ED-455C-A8EF-0418CB874BA7@hyperthought.com>
References: <DA0CCE5D-D67A-4AD0-8DCB-87F0F397D342@hyperthought.com> <CABkgnnUPmUQq6VaCKWu8=yZUABScbzTfoNQMwrg-Nr511R-XRQ@mail.gmail.com> <93D1B0AD-7CA0-4143-9687-A9CE05170120@hyperthought.com> <CABkgnnXeZpzxpQwzxrTpJJMcaWFdhh6zxNBEdFnwssychNX2Lg@mail.gmail.com> <5604BEA6-52ED-455C-A8EF-0418CB874BA7@hyperthought.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:28:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWiSQ4EpM3nEVBgs0vtvsL3A9g9CoE0hvj7dj0OMJ03bg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Scott Kelly <scott@hyperthought.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/9_I82Flou-tNrWWuL3V1RMEEsL4>
Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol.all@tools.ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:28:41 -0000

On 10 June 2015 at 13:10, Scott Kelly <scott@hyperthought.com> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Would it make more sense like this?
>>
>>          A proxy can use the value of the ALPN header field to more cleanly and
>>          efficiently reject requests for a CONNECT tunnel.  Exposing protocol
>>          information at the HTTP layer allows a proxy to deny requests earlier,
>>          with better error reporting (such as a 403 status code).  The ALPN
>>          header field can be falsified and is therefore not sufficient basis
>>          for authorizing a request.
>
> Yes.

Thanks Scott.

https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/3fb72e95

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email