W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: #322: Origin

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:09:19 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <53703E66-B5DE-437F-B52B-434D36F10379@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Picking this back up...

On 15/12/2011, at 4:05 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2011-12-14 04:27, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/322>
>> 
>> Since we now have a definition of an Origin, it'd be good to use it where appropriate.
> 
> Not *entirely* convinced.
> 
>> Proposal for p7 2.2:
>> 
>> """A protection space is defined by the origin [ref to origin rfc], combined with the realm value (if present)."""
> 
> We currently have:
> 
> "canonical root URI (the scheme and authority components of the effective request URI; see Section 4.3 of [Part1])"
> 
> That is essentially the same as the Origin, if we add the the comparison rule from <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-17.html#rfc.section.2.7.3>
> 
> My concern is that the Origin spec does all these special things for case we don't need to care of. Maybe we should just define the "origin" of a effective request URI in Part 1, and state that it's the same as the one you'd get following the algorithm in the Origin spec?

OK. How would that impact p7?


> Proposal for p6 2.5:
>> 
>> """However, a cache MUST NOT invalidate a URI from a Location or Content-Location header field if that URI does not have the same origin as that of the effective request URI (section 4.3 of [Part1]), as specified in [ref to origin rfc]."""
> 
> Currently: "However, a cache MUST NOT invalidate a URI from a Location or Content-Location header field if the host part of that URI differs from the host part in the effective request URI (Section 4.3 of [Part1]). This helps prevent denial of service attacks."
> 
> So this is *different* from Origin in that it doesn't take the scheme and the port into account. Is this an intentional change?


Subsequent discussion was light, but Adam seemed to suggest that it would be good to align them. Any cache implementers care to comment?

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 12 March 2012 11:09:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:57 GMT