Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-05

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 05 August 2021 01:02 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D48B3A0D1C; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 18:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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=Vsz6bDFh; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=NqW1/BsA
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 32EZIVdGF4sv; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 18:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 644A73A0D1B; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 18:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A5105C004F; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 21:02:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 04 Aug 2021 21:02:22 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm3; bh=h +fOouHxu4GJvk4bpiWuZ8S4GLEjos8vmhAs526DKa4=; b=Vsz6bDFhoh5U/iaRj A5riEX+LULOlc274BtAcWjTAPeBDZvS/x8BY/9IeaCS591qYoEesFeopfxlTbxDN 6i+Pen9siC23C+95BORismsETcOXhVxaDu8lTRZ9Sc5UGNIiDIEaLMnAsCzKTpVT dFbjWBydKy9uiho95t8x6x/xSIKjziBHlzxgkJ7IlgWhm/LKI4Ta5LcuuZ53M34D 62+D0uz+bxmqw5Q2AbpDSAmj8BYWAOj+ROAWeZojbjc3lksQ5XSMyKfV7ND5UmF8 +Bc5WGI2F1Ubdq9clBxbpGEhRygyn/LGsB3Nxh8olsY/uNAGW4JyOiua+CSJIc8/ WC49A==
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-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=h+fOouHxu4GJvk4bpiWuZ8S4GLEjos8vmhAs526DK a4=; b=NqW1/BsANCILtUHHgOmdoYR5OTByA9mta1XhAfIngc2mhtK30ZfiwwtPk dCvXkGV2cClWzffVolfjpd1hV1s30UNncwW/Nal+N4XoA9hVaT7r5Md6n50fxuiB QDuGHjRfFijOTuvOSulGqxVmXTTElPDtrnsPh1I3Et0kydptY1eS460w5BUmCPun 243PtPatm1MxCL/DQXxKT3lwEeBn/lKNMgox+PGvzykTG+T3IQsJGfoPhzV7+vDf clwlvcsq8aLsQBvh83xw/TKrR3tqzIWAdvCyUlx1DtEmmP/eHbOW1RUk4CJSTeMH AwuOh+WMGSyv+y8QaVYEbC5otIjLA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:nTgLYcLi-X4RiJ5S_KfUPRz4Vp8W9T4b9pUehauBArgfGG7Uqri-Gw> <xme:nTgLYcL07SDpCHgQQa_gzn0u4hXRcB0pkc__3qtBZ1tVZN2MQMZzjunCcNdW0tB53 JlDWP92EiVXHaM8fg>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:nTgLYcvab6UP2UbNH_23FbY_j-ZlIARnSIIMl7T-UtFF-CCRwBcrN3odWRYXp_uBF9PuNt0oFZIbZFYm2GN-jJaLvNkxrimHNLwpo2Bfim68tmDoAJtiil8Y>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrieekgdeflecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpeforghrkhcu pfhothhtihhnghhhrghmuceomhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvg hrnhepgeeukeeltedttedttdfgkeelheeujeduueefkeekieevfeeltdegudelledvfeet necuffhomhgrihhnpehgihhthhhusgdrtghomhdpvgigrghmphhlvgdrtghomhdpmhhnoh htrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhho mhepmhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:nTgLYZb2OfGPGzp2ulqU80hhFXmCF6xGHkKUPKupby1PoAHc7-Mk1A> <xmx:nTgLYTaGxGsCndoN7gmUDSXKNVAGH7e32O_p448gkaQM6DhP4-ZsFw> <xmx:nTgLYVBF8IEYEWscMFwiH0rOSam8TSRltY4w_2OfRC1FhoKOOIYZfA> <xmx:njgLYYN8jVx367hr_J9Uzv56SX7WDCd4ezpDTWJA1Qrw4OJRkwUlbg>
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 21:02:19 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <162806688882.17375.7880634816418241367@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 11:02:16 +1000
Cc: tsv-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status.all@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3CCC1C6A-C010-45F5-BC10-B0FB297A6A06@mnot.net>
References: <162806688882.17375.7880634816418241367@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/p92W6SEzUwQolCE5z3aav22Jn2c>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-05
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 01:02:31 -0000

Hi Magnus,

Thanks for the review. See:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1591

Happy to continue the discussion here or over there.

Cheers,


> On 4 Aug 2021, at 6:48 pm, Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Magnus Westerlund
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
> discussion list for information.
> 
> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
> tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.
> 
> I found not transport related issues, only some clarity issues related to extra
> parameters and their registration.
> 
> 1. Section 2:
> Depending on the deployment, this might be a product or service name (e.g.,
> ExampleProxy or "Example CDN"), a hostname ("proxy-3.example.com"), an IP
> address, or a generated string.
> 
> Is really an IP address a good identifier for intermediary? Or is the case that
> there some that doesn't have a better identity than its IP? And should there be
> additional security considerations about including IP addresses in the header?
> 
> 2. Section 2.1.1:
> 
> Proxy Error Types can also define any number of extra parameters for use with
> that type. Their use, like all parameters, is optional. As a result, if an
> extra parameter is used with a Proxy Error Type for which it is not defined, it
> will be ignored.
> 
> It is not obvious how these extra parameters are to be encoded.
> 
> If we take the example of DNS Error, how would that look like in an example?
> 
> HTTP/1.1 502 Bad Gateway
> Proxy-Status: SomeReverseProxy; error=dns_error; rcode="123 something";
> info-code=3454
> 
> Can you please clarify this aspect?
> 
> 3. Section 3:
> 
> Shouldn't the extra parameters in Section 2.3 be registered in the HTTP
> Proxy-Status Parameters registry? If not can you clarify how they are handled?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> 

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