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

Re: #148: Reasonable Assurances and H2C

From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 16:54:18 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <201602281653.u1SGrWFR027058@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>: (Sun Feb 28 00:10:46 2016)
>> The way to assure the vetting is to say that they must be Standards
>> Track.  Experimental documents might or might not get sufficient
>> vetting.
>> The way to ensure that people who read this spec can find all the
>> extensions is to make a registry.  Extensions shouldn't generally be
>> "updating" the original spec.
>> So...
>> You can decide how you think the vetting will be accomplished, but if
>> you want it to be easy to find the new mechanisms, have this document
>> set up a registry and say that new mechanisms MUST be registered
>> there.  Then there's no concern about any "updates" rules with respect
>> to documents from other than Standards Track sources.
> A registry doesn't feel right because this isn't a protocol element. This isn't an extension in the usual sense; it's a controlled loosening of the spec's (security-sensitive) requirements.

Well, "reasonable assurances" can be protocol

Alt-Svc: h2=":8443"; ma=60000; trust="/.well-known/alternative-services"

(except that token should be shorter, perhaps trust=wk-alt-svc )


Alt-Svc: h2=":8443"; ma=60000; trust=also-options

( ie. "OPTIONS * HTTP/1.1"   should return sama Alt-Svc: -header field
 from original server. )

> However, it doesn't seem like 'updates' is the right way to do this either. Upon reflection, I wonder if we really need either property (at least in such a rigorous form); people will find the mechanisms if they get implemented, and we've been happy to have OppSec as Experimental.
> Anyone have a problem with dropping this?
> """
> Other means of establishing them MUST be documented in an RFC that updates this specification.
> """

Not actually.

( Also just dropping that "updates" works:

| Other means of establishing them MUST be documented in an RFC.

After all that just needs well defined protocol. There is
several possibilities. )

> Cheers,
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

/ Kari Hurtta
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:09:49 UTC

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