W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 22:38:56 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56CF7470.8080306@gmx.de>
On 2016-02-25 22:30, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Section 2., paragraph 11:
>>> OLD:
>>>
>>>     Alt-Svc MAY occur in any HTTP response message, regardless of the
>>>     status code.  Note that recipients of Alt-Svc are free to ignore the
>>>     header field (and indeed need to in some situations; see Sections 2.1
>>>     and 6).
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>>
>>>     Alt-Svc MAY occur in any HTTP response message, regardless of the
>>>     status code.  Note that recipients of Alt-Svc MAY ignore the header
>>>     field (and are required to in some situations; see Sections 2.1 and
>>>     6).
>>
>> This should be reverted; the actual requirements are in Sections 2.1 and 6, and we should not have them in multiple places.
>
> Agreed.

200.

>>> Section 4., paragraph 2:
>>> OLD:
>>>
>>>     The ALTSVC frame is a non-critical extension to HTTP/2.  Endpoints
>>>     that do not support this frame can safely ignore it.
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>>
>>>     The ALTSVC frame is a non-critical extension to HTTP/2.  Endpoints
>>>     that do not support this frame MAY ignore it.
>>
>> This is IMHO misleading as it is true for any unknown frame. It just follows from <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7540.html#rfc.section.4.1>:
>>
>> "Implementations MUST ignore and discard any frame that has a type that is unknown."
>
> Would adding "as per [RFC7540], Section 4.1" help?

"Endpoints that do not support this frame *will* ignore it (as per thee 
extensibility rules defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC7540])."

?

>>> Section 4., paragraph 13:
>>> OLD:
>>>
>>>     The ALTSVC frame is intended for receipt by clients; a server that
>>>     receives an ALTSVC frame can safely ignore it.
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>>
>>>     The ALTSVC frame is intended for receipt by clients.  A device acting
>>>     as a server MUST ignore it.
>>
>> I'm ok with this one (but wanted to highlight the new normative requirement).
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
>>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2016 21:39:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 March 2016 12:47:11 UTC