W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Destination header syntax (Bug 211) and how WebDAV works with reverse proxies

From: Jason Crawford <nn683849@smallcue.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 23:03:40 -0500
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFAF1C65FE.5E25F915-ON852570FE.00163E12-852570FE.00164F6A@us.ibm.com>
I do also support that.

Lisa Dusseault <nnlisa___at___osafoundation.org@smallcue.com> 
Sent by: nnw3c-dist-auth-request___at___w3.org@smallcue.com
01/21/2006 07:05 PM

Julian Reschke <nnjulian.reschke___at___gmx.de@smallcue.com>
WebDav <nnw3c-dist-auth___at___w3.org@smallcue.com>, "ccjason@us.ibm.com" 
Re: Destination header syntax (Bug 211) and how WebDAV works with reverse 

I support extending the Destination header and all other locations 
that take URLs, such that servers MUST accept absolute paths.


On Jan 21, 2006, at 12:40 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Hi,
> we've got an open issue with the format of the Destination header 
> (see <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211>). 
> Investigating this one showed that there's a bigger issue behind 
> it, and I was asked to summarize...
> 1. Status Quo
> In RFC2518, the Destination header is defined to take a full URL, 
> so no relative references or absolute paths are allowed (<http:// 
> greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#HEADER_Destination>). At 
> first glance, this seems to be unambiguous and no reason whatsoever 
> for further discussion.
> However, the problem here is that it means that client and server 
> need to agree about what the HTTP authority (server + port) are. 
> Why would that be a problem? The client did send the correct Host: 
> header, after all, right?
> The issue here are setups where a reverse proxy sits between client 
> and server (such as with <http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/mod/ 
> mod_proxy.html>). In a reverse proxy setup, the client addresses 
> the reverse proxy, not the origin server, and it's up to the 
> reverse proxy to rewrite and forward the request to the end point. 
> One use case for this would be a web site that uses Apache on port 
> 80 as a base server, but also uses this to delegate calls to 
> certain URLs to a servlet engine running on a different port (or 
> machine).
> In cases like these, clients and server do not agree upon what the 
> actual end point is. For plain HTTP, this usually is not a problem, 
> unless the server constructs URLs on it's own and sends them back 
> inside content (in which case there are additional modules trying 
> to rewrite content).
> Regarding the Host request header, the reverse proxy generally has 
> two choices. Leaving it as is (lying to the origin server), or 
> rewriting it (putting in the actual address of the origin server). 
> The latter seems to be the default both in Apache as in IIS scenarios.
> This isn't a problem, unless there is *other* information in the 
> request that also identifies the origin server, such as the 
> Destination header. Consider
>   MOVE /a HTTP/1.1
>   Host: www.example.com
>   Destination: http://www.example.com/b
> sent to a reverse proxy running on port 80 of www.example.com, 
> which in turn forwards the request to port 8080, rewriting the host 
> header, but not touching the Destination header:
>   MOVE /a HTTP/1.1
>   Host: www.example.com:8080
>   Destination: http://www.example.com/b
> A compliant WebDAV server will detect that the target of MOVE is on 
> a different server, and fail the request.
> So if this is a real-world problem, why haven't people been 
> complaining more about it?
> - The most widely deployed WebDAV servers (Apache/moddav and IIS 
> 5.5) in fact are not compliant. They just ignore the authority part 
> in the destination header, and happily execute the MOVE operation 
> (see <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211#c3>).
> - The most widely used WebDAV client (MS Webfolders) in fact has 
> fallback behaviour: when the server returns a 502 status, it 
> silently GETs the content from the source URL and PUTs it to the 
> Destination (but watch out for lost WebDAV properties; it doesn't 
> do PROPFIND/PROPPATCH as far as I can tell).
> 2. RFC2518bis history
> So at some point, this working group concluded that it would be 
> good if clients would be able to stick just absolute paths into the 
> Destination header, and the problem would go away, see <http:// 
> lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JulSep/0025.html>. 
> But this wouldn't really have been sufficient, as there are other 
> places where we require full URLs in a request, such as in tagged 
> lists in the If header. After short discussion, the change was 
> backed out fearing that existing servers would become non- 
> compliant. This history still reflects in awkward language in 
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav- 
> rfc2518bis-10.html#destination-header>.
> 3. What now?
> I think the fact that both Apache and IIS ignore the spec is a 
> clear indicator that we need to fix something. Servers just 
> ignoring part of the Destination URL because clients may get them 
> wrong, or because they may not pass properly through reverse 
> proxies, certainly is a bad thing.
> As RFC2518bis already requires changes in servers, I think asking 
> for a few more changes should be ok. In particular, requiring 
> servers to accept absolute paths in requests seems to be an easy-to- 
> implement and backwards compatible change (before, servers would 
> reject these request with 4xx).
> This would include:
> a) the destination header and
> b) coded-URLs in Tagged lists in the If header
> At a minimum, we should *allow* servers to accept these. Smart 
> clients could then fall back to sending just the paths in case the 
> request using full URLs would fail.
> We also should try to get conformance tests for proper evaluation 
> of the Destination header into Neon (the Apache problem already has 
> been reported (as <http://issues.eu.apache.org/bugzilla/ 
> show_bug.cgi?id=38182>).
> Alternatively, we could decide that this problem isn't big enough 
> to warrant such a late spec change (in which case I'd recommend to 
> move this into a future activity, making WebDAV more robust for 
> setups like these).
> Feedback appreciated,
> Julian
Received on Sunday, 22 January 2006 04:03:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:35 UTC