Re: [websec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-websec-origin-04.txt> (The Web Origin Concept) to Proposed Standard

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Fri, 02 September 2011 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <fielding@gbiv.com>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F9321F8D5E; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.472
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.873, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 hyo2o2wIjLwm; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a36.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbef.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B24221F8D56; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a36.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a36.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E5177805F; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.134.89.83] (unknown [75.103.10.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by homiemail-a36.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B015778057; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHhFybpey5-e7KYkUb-tsBAb_+KSykvQ1w4vUuQL7xyguYXAcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:15:12 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <24011A01-BF9D-4A63-A7DE-554399FDAB96@gbiv.com>
References: <20110823211953.14482.9265.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <712C43CF-5F59-4F3D-B88F-11B3CEE52591@gbiv.com> <CAHhFybpey5-e7KYkUb-tsBAb_+KSykvQ1w4vUuQL7xyguYXAcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: websec <websec@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [websec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-websec-origin-04.txt> (The Web Origin Concept) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <websec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec>
List-Post: <mailto:websec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 21:13:45 -0000

On Sep 2, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> On 2 September 2011 21:38, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
> [http-bis]
>>   OWS            = *( HTAB / SP / obs-fold )
>>                    ; "optional" whitespace
>>   obs-fold       = CRLF ( HTAB / SP )
>>                    ; obsolete line folding
> 
> Clearer.  JFTR, this is still "avoid *any* folding", and not
> "avoid more than one folding".

That is the intention.  There is no reason to fold in HTTP
outside of the message/http media type.

>  And if you like...
> 
>>   origin              = "Origin:" [ SP ] origin-list-or-null
> 
> ...I wonder why you don't demote HTAB generally to "obsolete"
> in OWS.

We already state that a single SP is preferred.

> Or why you don't propose *WSP instead of [SP] in the
> Origin header field.

Because a single SP is preferred.  This is a new header field.

> It would be odd if the overall HTTPbis
> rules and the specific Origin header field have different
> ideas about "optional white space" (modulo <obs-fold>, i.e.,
> eliminating <obs-fold> in a new header field Origin is fine).

The overall field parsing rules for HTTPbis are for recipients.
These things are parsed in general, and so it only matters that
the generative grammar for origin matches one of the choices
allowed by the parsing grammar in HTTPbis.

> One optional SP is not the same as zero or more ( HTAB / SP ).

It is if you only send the preferred format.  That said, I'd also
agree with Julian's suggestion that it is better to just define
the field-value in ABNF and leave the rest to HTTP.

....Roy