RE: Looking for comments on the HTTP Extension draft

<Defining the Problem>
I suspect we all at least agree that there is a need for a mandatory
extension mechanism. The functionality for this header being something on
the order of "If you don't understand the header names specified in this
header then you MUST fail this method."

One could make the argument that if one needs to add a header with semantics
that can't be ignored then one should change the method name and require
that the new method not ignore this header. However the management
complexities of this solution are exponential, thus this proposal is not

I suspect we all can also agree that this mechanism must work with HTTP/1.0
and HTTP/1.1. The tools available to achieve this goal are:
	1) Servers must fail methods they don't understand.
	2) Servers must ignore headers they don't understand.

Since the only guaranteed failure mode is a method name that isn't
understood then it is this mechanism which must be leveraged in order to
guarantee that a mandatory header will be properly honored. This is what the
"M-" prefix achieves. By adding "M-" we guarantee that all existing
firewalls, proxies, servers, etc. will either turn themselves into a pipe or
fail the method if they do not understand the mandatory mechanism.

Servers/firewalls/proxies which do understand the mechanism also understand
that they can infer nothing from the method name without having first
checked the mandatory prefix. I agree that this is a significantly
sub-optimal solution. Additionally, when processing the method one needs to
first find out if there is a mandatory header so one can find the prefix
translation and thus "decode" the HTTP headers, an equally sub-optimal

However there is a second problem lurking here which I don't believe has
been fully called out. There does not exist a decentralized mechanism to
allow for the introduction of new methods and headers. Currently the best
one can do is get an RFC and hope that no one else is already using that
method/header name. We already know this doesn't work as method name
collisions have already occurred. Mandatory provides a mechanism to
associate a URI with a method or header and in so doing provides the very
decentralized mechanism we so desperately need.
</Defining the Problem>

<Henrik, put down that knife!>
However, given the previous pointed out sub-optimalities, I'm not sure that
the cure is all that much better than the disease. As such, I would like to
propose an alternative design.

1) The creation of a hierarchical namespace encoding for methods and headers
ala what is being discussed in the URLREG WG. For example V!MS!FOO where V
is a stand in for vnd or vendor.

2) The creation of a standardized encoding mechanism to allow for the use of
a fully qualified URIs as a method of header name. Because both use the
token production, standard URI characters such as : and / can not be used
without encoding.

These two mechanisms will allow for decentralized extension without fear of
collision, exactly as is being attempted now in the URLREG WG. The cost,
however, of this mechanism is byte bloat. Mandatory's use of prefixing
allows short names to be used with short prefixes which are then translated
to their full names. In essence, mandatory has created relative URIs.
However the cost is double processing the headers. Thus every mandatory
aware proxy/firewall/server must process each request twice. There is a
trade off to be made here. My proposal leverages the existing HTTP
infrastructure as the cost of byte bloat. Henrik's proposal solves the byte
bloat problem but at the cost of causing us to have to completely re-write
our parsers to do double parsing. I suspect maintaining the current
infrastructure is probably the better goal.

The downside of my simplification proposal is that it doesn't provide a
generic mechanism to say "The functionality represented by this URI is now
associated with this method." Instead you have to use a header hack. You
have to add a header with the specified URI and then include its name in
Mandatory. I can live with this. How about you?
</Henrik, put down that knife!>

<So spoke Ted Hardie>
> 	Before going into the details, however, I want to make clear
> that I was not proposing that the HTTP *minor* version number be
> revved, but its *major* version number.  This document seems to me to
> propose a framework that will encompass changes sufficiently great to
> warrant that change--the landscape of the web will be changed
> completely if this is adopted, and that calls to me for some pretty
> clear signposts.  
> 	I will repeat that I would not see the need for the rev if the
> document did not allow responses to contain extensions based on "a
> priori" knowledge.  Without that "a priori" extension, HEAD, OPTIONS,
> or the other methods you describe would suffice.  Without a very clear
> specification of very specific cases where those "a priori" extensions
> are allowed, they will be used in many, many cases that we cannot now
> foresee.  That means a big, big flag needs to be raised.
</So spoke Ted Hardie>

<Yes, Dorothy, we are still in Kansas>
I must take issue with the fundamental logic of this statement. The power of
the Mandatory's design is that it is backwards compatible with HTTP/1.0 and
HTTP/1.1. That backwards compatibility comes from the fact that Mandatory
leverages the fail/ignore principals of HTTP so as to allow an existing
server to properly fail a Mandatory enhanced method without knowing anything
about Mandatory. Thus, by the very definition of the feature, we have
absolutely no requirement to up the major version number. Upping the version
number means we have made a non-backwards compatible semantic change.
Mandatory, by properly leveraging HTTP's extension design, makes a 100%
backwards compatible semantic change. Please see below for comments
specifically addressing the ramifications of Mandatory for firewalls and
</Yes, Dorothy, we are still in Kansas>

<Our weapons are fear, uncertainty and doubt>
The "a priori" language was added at my insistence. The reason being that
previously the standard allowed for the return of mandatory headers on
responses without the client having first identified to the server that it
could understand the mandatory extensions. The spec had some vague language
about what a client was supposed to do when it got an unrecognized Mandatory
extension on a response. I felt the language was absolutely unacceptable and
demanded, without exception, that a client MUST have somehow expressed to
the server that it understands a particular mandatory extension before the
server is allowed to use that extension on a response. I did not, however,
demand an actual specification of what "a priori" meant because I recognize
that such a definition was futile. Given that the very nature of a mandatory
extension means that extension specific code has been added to the
client/server I believe it is in our interest to retain maximum flexibility
in defining how client signaling of support is accomplished.
</Our weapons are fear, uncertainty and doubt>

<So spoke Ted Hardie>
> I did not say it must *read* the declaration first; I said it must
> *process* it first.  Whether that is a one pass or a two pass header
> field parsing makes no difference to the requirement.  As written, if
> a Man: or an Opt: header exists, it must be processed with its
> namespace headers first, as the meanings of the other headers may
> change based on the extensions.
</So spoke Ted Hardie>

<Nothing is fool proof, fools are too ingenious>
To follow your logic, we should require that the major version # of HTTP be
raised every time a new method is introduced. I am free to design the "FOO"
method which stipulates that if the content-location header and the location
header are both present then the location header should be seen as a pointer
to a backup server where subsequent requests can be made. Thus the only way
to fully understand the headers on a FOO method is to read in all the
headers and see if both content-location and location are present. This is,
of course, bad design but it certainly is not a reason to up the major
version number on HTTP.
</Nothing is fool proof, fools are too ingenious>

<So spoke Ted Hardie>
> This is, in fact, a point I don't feel I am making well, and I'd like
> Larry to speak to it if he can.  During the CONNEG meetings 
> in Orlando,
> he expressed very well the principle that the meaning of a 
> feature must
> not depend semantically on the values of *other* features (so 
> "Warm" must
> mean the same thing whether we are talking about beer or the 
> weather).  
> This has a lot of implications for feature design (You don't 
> use "Warm",
> you use "33c").  Many of the same issues apply even more strongly for 
> extensions to HTTP, and I don't see them addressed in the draft. 
</So spoke Ted Hardie>

<Nothing is fool proof, fools are too ingenious>
Agreed, but this is an issue of a particular Mandatory extension. There is
nothing in Mandatory which requires this sort of behavior. This is the same
issue as my previous FOO method example.
</Nothing is fool proof, fools are too ingenious>

<So spoke Ted Hardie>
> Again, I don't seem to be getting my point across here.  The example I
> gave was possibly too local.  I was trying to imply that the apparent
> method for extending a method might seem to imply constraints which
> aren't there.  In the M-GET example, you may have the base semantics
> of GET, but you also have the possibility of secondary effects (like
> the M-GET popping a stack and causing a new value to be present at the
> URL) which substantially change the original semantics and cause
> previously expected characteristics of GET (like idempotence) to
> change.  The implication of this is that anyone examining a method for
> security reasons (like a firewall administrator) cannot rely on the
> method to the right of the M- for any real expectations of the
> method's semantics.
</So spoke Ted Hardie>

<It's a feature!>
Absolutely true! Nor is there any implication in the draft that an
administrator could do so. In fact I assume our readers are just as smart as
you are and will, as you did, figure out that for their firewall to have any
chance of parsing the method they MUST parse the mandatory header itself,
see if they recognize the extension and if they do then and only then do
they have sufficient information to deal with the method. Otherwise the
firewall must treat the method as any other method it knows absolutely
nothing about. The beauty of mandatory is that this is what a firewall which
knows nothing about mandatory, much less the enhanced method, will do with a
mandatory request. Everything just works. However a note about this in the
security section is probably appropriate.
</It's a feature!>

<So spoke Ted Hardie>
> The fact that people get identifiers right in other contexts doesn't
> really change the fact that this a major change to how URLs are used
> in the current web context.  Given that current context, I am afraid I
> find "strongly recommended" to be weakly worded.  It's not even a
> SHOULD requirement, and I believe that it ought to be the most
> strongly worded MUST we can design.  Without that strong requirement,
> interoperability is based on the good will of the market players, some
> of whom will have strong disincentives to admit some kinds of changes.
</So spoke Ted Hardie>

<Deja Vu, all over again>
1) This is not new, WebDAV does the exactly same thing.
2) I trust the market a hell of a lot more than I trust some text in a
standards document. If people choose to use someone's extension and that
person does not properly maintain their extension then people will stop
using that extension. No "MUST" in a standard can change that one way or
another. I think the language is actually quite clear and well written. I
disagree that any word smithing is necessary.
</Deja Vu, all over again>

<So spoke Ted Hardie>
> Your first point is exactly what I am trying to get across: q values
> describe the value on the axis and not *which* axis is being given the
> value.  For a content negotiation mechanism to handle the problem you
> propose, it would have to be able to designate the axis and the value.
> I am not aware of any content negotiation mechanism, current or
> proposed, that can handle that at the level of complexity your
> document implies.  The correct operation of content negotiation for a
> single-URI resource which potentially has everything from
> machine-executable code to multi-lingual, multi-character set
> descriptions is not an easy problem.  If you must imply that you want
> it, please be very sure that you describe it as an unsolved problem
> requiring further work.
</So spoke Ted Hardie>

Since I don't generally believe in negotiation I will leave this argument to

<So spoke Ted Hardie>
> To be brutally honest, I believe that those who ought to be 
> giving this
> framework the very careful review it deserves are simply too tired to
> go over it with the fine-toothed comb it needs.  We must be careful
> to get that review and those problems worked at before it is released,
> though, as the work required to fix this post facto would be enormous.
</So spoke Ted Hardie>

<Ohhhhhh Ted..... I love it when your brutal!>
Sigh... I have to agree. December is a lousy month to try to perform a
review. Half the necessary people are gone and the rest are too busy to deal
with it.
</Ohhhhhh Ted..... I love it when your brutal!>

<So spoke Ted Hardie>
> Thanks again for all your continuing work on it,
> 				best regards,
> 					Ted Hardie
</So spoke Ted Hardie>

<Nobody here but us Chickens>
Ohh goodie... Henrik can commit a double homicide. I just love company. =)
</Nobody here but us Chickens>

Received on Monday, 28 December 1998 16:10:42 UTC