- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 11:24:54 +0100
- To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, mnot@mnot.net, mcmanus@ducksong.com, superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, tpauly@apple.com
- Cc: lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Am 13.03.2021 um 01:23 schrieb RFC Errata System: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7838, > "HTTP Alternative Services". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6481 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> > > Section: 2.4 > > Original Text > ------------- > Furthermore, if the connection to the alternative service fails or is > unresponsive, the client MAY fall back to using the origin or another > alternative service. Note, however, that this could be the basis of > a downgrade attack, thus losing any enhanced security properties of > the alternative service. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > > Notes > ----- > Alt-Svc fall back is described in section 2.4 and mentions security properties, so I was expecting to see something about fall back in the security considerations. This might be implicitly covered by Section 9.3 but it could potentially be made more clear. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC7838 (draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-14) > -------------------------------------- > Title : HTTP Alternative Services > Publication Date : April 2016 > Author(s) : M. Nottingham, P. McManus, J. Reschke > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : HTTP > Area : Applications and Real-Time > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG I don't think this is an erratum. The spec says what the WG agreed upon. If you're looking for a place to collect improvement ideas for a potential RFC7838bis, we can do that on the WG's Github issue tracker. Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
Received on Saturday, 13 March 2021 10:25:24 UTC