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: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:45:39 +1100
Cc: HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C1CC7C72-28EA-4D40-8694-0549D95DBDCB@mnot.net>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/5f22e10b0c82

Note that I changed "are free to" to "can" in the first one (as that phrase was the original source of the issue).

Cheers,



> On 26 Feb 2016, at 8:38 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 26 February 2016 00:46:09 UTC

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