IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-03

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 07 July 2017 09:33 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6AA4129AD0; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 02:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=Cma8/Rkw; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=puPRxddm
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 mU9U5EJOReF7; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 02:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3A541204DA; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 02:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38B8A20AED; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 05:33:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 07 Jul 2017 05:33:22 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=6Ez5dztVkOe0no5bFI AR8hk3QaCOUlMCN4iPKfnWRZY=; b=Cma8/RkwvpQO0Sie4hey5Hk9ExK8phDzvo zv+U1cYY9w0Q2/Gg1GcKRb2ZarT/wxhB2GzIwMoja8X7TN7TUsQwx95cYbsSyOHn 5zsqipIpGPCYrOrBN7Lr3A+G4u1Wj9yhbqm83nDoP4bYAWa/q7D7qmNr/Vw82e4p aLrORisfT9DjcRv+gG/cX8WQDrm1vS2zFyVeVn4H0zf0Dcb3xNtisij0QWhiMPN1 iOf+Htcvz+WJ9teS2BhfeuyltBjQPj/LGY8XFUuRSJ+BLfaEuOagLi11Qf3XlXX0 DIj+tbv1nYV2WrBM5HG123D5OZvWC+xF5Uhz6iQO78PZMSPzU8AA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=6Ez5dztVkOe0no5bFIAR8hk3QaCOUlMCN4iPKfnWRZY=; b=puPRxddm rhvDjLPBDOq7SjJqWNC4PV+4EroHYRjZcQ3WWbbGX1JOnNyUl5eUAI8WBRs/RNR4 vw/TUG6A7vEe8Lacr6EQ/YccYAT0rYRo+kfILzdUlFiLNu4n9yovAqATAhleyEQW SqLcs3zogTW5rZL40L6wfwsGdWye9W3kqVb8V0LJPexQ/RVXqnonqtolMMgICVIn 3/4blOAOUukqBFAglFSpR14ZDD9St1T1s3cu1LecWGpOsVNx38Nh2DCiZhVP7joa C4i2Itbf0UHQsZkvaATwXKGcOZVLK/3bgvqoeg/WOfL5Za3Y3vIOF/0Nc1SENdaZ xwIVhkGabFBsuw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:YlVfWQnMLrbuFq8jYHLN1skACD4pE2O-EbYC2qZlM1rJ6w6zRGpybQ>
X-Sasl-enc: Fe7ag9UYwYd4bVPwo1iczLrddTr7u7FilIlrfXoZFfwf 1499420001
Received: from [192.168.1.14] (cpe-124-188-19-231.hdbq1.win.bigpond.net.au [124.188.19.231]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id ED5167E622; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 05:33:19 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20170707092316.GA27560@1wt.eu>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 19:33:17 +1000
Cc: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints.all@ietf.org, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A1A1FDB3-C346-4F52-8942-BBEF05849A3F@mnot.net>
References: <149919703750.15996.5462759432298024921@ietfa.amsl.com> <CANatvzx8GsvoYMscHciKNrOwRzcz1v7=jTCUUp4Z5E=jO9Wd6g@mail.gmail.com> <7273f8ab-c1ff-5dff-862e-0a1ead6d28b2@gmail.com> <20170707092316.GA27560@1wt.eu>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/aPgHQVISSJsCrmoQjJpkkImfv_g>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-03
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 09:33:25 -0000

On 7 Jul 2017, at 7:23 pm, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> 
> Maybe the stronger wording should be oriented differently, such as
> "Servers MUST not send 103 to HTTP/1.0 clients nor to any client
> known not to support 1xx informational responses" ? This way it
> leaves the possibility opened (ie rely on version and/or user-agent
> or anything else once an exception is known).

RFC7231 already says "Since HTTP/1.0 did not define any 1xx status codes, a server MUST NOT send a 1xx response to an HTTP/1.0 client."


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email