W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: Origin vs Authority; use of HTTPS (draft-nottingham-site-meta-01)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:31:05 +1100
To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8E28F21A-96DE-4426-88A8-1E4A76A970E6@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav <blade@yahoo-inc.com>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Adam Barth <abarth@cs.stanford.edu>, Collin Jackson <collinj@cs.stanford.edu>


Hi Thomas,

Gentle reminder; the draft asks for discussion on www-talk. Sending  
followups there (I should have mentioned this in the announcement,  
sorry)...

Responses below.


On 11/02/2009, at 1:57 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Reading draft-nottingham-site-meta-01...
>
>> 4. Discovering host-meta Files
>
>> The metadata for a given authority can be discovered by  
>> dereferencing the path /host-meta on the same authority. For  
>> example, for an HTTP URI [RFC2616], the following request would  
>> obtain metadata for the authority "www.example.com:80";
>
> Editorial nit: That semicolon wants to be a colon.

Ack.


>> GET /host-meta HTTP/1.1
>> Host: www.example.com
>
> It is somewhat unclear what the scope of the host-meta file is, or  
> more precisely, how the URI for the host-meta file is derived from  
> the URI of the resource that the metadata apply to.
>
> Section 4 seems to suggest that the URI is maybe generated by  
> dereferencing the relative URI reference /host-meta using the  
> resource's URI as the base URI, but it doesn't say that clearly; the  
> use of "authority" suggests that the choice of the protocol is  
> actually up to the implementation.

Well, the authority is host + port; common sense tells us that it's  
unlikely that the same (host, port) tuple that we speak HTTP on is  
also going to support SMTP or XMPP. I'm not saying that common sense  
is universal, however.


> From the previous apps-discuss thread, it seems like the main use  
> case for permitting metadata to leak across schemes (and therefore,  
> typically ports -- though ports and schemes are strictly speaking  
> orthogonal) lies with URI schemes that do not have a resource  
> retrieval operation readily available, e.g., mailto.

My understanding of the discussion's resolution was that this is not a  
goal for this spec any more; i.e., if there's any boundary-hopping, it  
will be defined by the protocol or application in use.


> On the other hand, I'm extremely wary about anything near HTTP that  
> might tear down origin boundaries without a great deal of care.

Very much agreed.


>  E.g., a purely authority-based approach might permit metadata to  
> leak from the HTTP part of a site (where no integrity protection is  
> given) into its HTTPS part (where integrity protection and  
> authenticity of data is deemed important), possibly permitting  
> attacks against web applications that are ostensibly protected -- as  
> is alluded to in the security considerations.
>
> The obvious solution to that part of the puzzle is to let the  
> mechanism default to the same URI scheme, unless there is a specific  
> convention to the contrary.  That should cover any URI schemes for  
> which a safe retrieval operation is defined (HTTP, HTTPS, FTP come  
> to mind).

I'm happy to clarify this by either adding scheme/protocol to the  
(host, port) tuple (although we'll probably have to come up with a  
different term than "authority"; PLEASE don't say "endpoint" ;), which  
will affect both the default scoping of application as well as the  
discovery mechanism, or just limiting it to discovery.


> For other URI schemes, one could either punt on this issue  
> completely, define a default fall-back to HTTP (or HTTPS, depending  
> on which of the two better matches the security properties of the  
> protocol in question), or actually say explicitly what's the correct  
> scheme.

I'm inclined to punt on it. Default fall-back to HTTP makes too many  
assumptions.

Thanks,

--
Mark Nottingham
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 00:32:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:01 GMT