W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > January 2015

RE: [navigation-error-logging] new draft proposal

From: Aaron Heady (BING AVAILABILITY) <aheady@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 22:22:11 +0000
To: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
CC: Domenic Denicola <domenic@google.com>
Message-ID: <BLUPR03MB1339D6C119ABE357A2A6244D1430@BLUPR03MB133.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
I’ll preface this with: I’m not a fan of the Delivery Policy idea, I prefer that the NEL details are in an array like the performance timing entries are and just accessed via client side script.

That said, removing the .js API is really bad. I don’t want .js based registration of the Deliver Policy, I just want .js based access to the NavigationErrorLog object array via .js so I can read it client side at will. How is this different than accessing performance timing info via .js? We can also have policy via headers, but that leads to these questions.

The server delivers the NEL policy<https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/navigation-error-logging/new/index.html#dfn-nel-policy> to the user agent via an HTTP response header field (NEL header field<https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/navigation-error-logging/new/index.html#dfn-nel-header-field>). The policy MUST be delivered over a secure transport. If the policy is delivered over a secure transport with no underlying secure transport errors or warnings, and its format conforms to the specified grammar, the user agent MUST either:

For above, Policy Delivery and Processing: By requiring secure delivery you have the added burden of setting up a secure channel just to deliver the policy on a normal HTTP page. This will have to execute as a background resource on every response we serve because we won’t know if the client has the delivery policy directive already, unless we add a cookie that tracks the expiration date, etc… Should there be request header indicating NEL enrollment so that everyone doesn’t have to roll their own tracking mechanism. Maybe NEL-max-age: 360 from the client would say I’m enrolled and have 360 second left until it expires. (bad header name, but you get the idea)

But probably a bigger issue: This also skips the fact that some CDNs have clients (domains) setup up on a HTTP only network where DNS resolves to a server that can’t/won’t host SSL, SSL/TLS is on a different IP block. Thus if you can’t get a certificate tied to your domain, you can’t issue policy for that domain. If I’m on an HTTP only CDN network for example.com, how do I get a policy issued to that domain via a secure connection?

2.1.1.3 The includeSubDomains Directive
The OPTIONAL includeSubDomains directive is a valueless directive that, if present, signals the user agent that the NEL policy<https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/navigation-error-logging/new/index.html#dfn-nel-policy> applies to this NEL host<https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/navigation-error-logging/new/index.html#dfn-nel-host> as well as any subdomains of the host's domain name.
For includeSubDomains, what’s the consequence if issued on foo.example.com? It should then work for *.foo.example.com, but if subsequently example.com issues its own includeSubDomains, does that overwrite foo.example.com, thus *.foo also?


Each report URI<https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/navigation-error-logging/new/index.html#dfn-report-uri> in the provided set of report URIs<https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/navigation-error-logging/new/index.html#dfn-set-of-report-uris> MUST use a secure transport to receive the NEL reports. If any of the provided report URI's<https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/navigation-error-logging/new/index.html#dfn-report-uri> does not use a secure transport, the user agent MUST ignore the provided policy. The process of sending navigation error reports to the specified URI's in this directive's value is defined in this documents 2.3 Reporting<https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/navigation-error-logging/new/index.html#reporting> section.

If the original user navigation, with all of the potential personal payload, doesn’t have to be secure, why does NEL telemetry have to be secure? Mind you, I like TLS and want to secure things. Just wondering why it is being dictated in this scenario. It also seems like it’s going to drive prices up on telemetry monitoring endpoints, 3rd party or in house.



The REQUIRED report-uri directive specifies a URI to which the user agent sends reports about navigation errors. The ABNF grammar for the name and value of the directive is:
The REQUIRED max-age directive specifies the number of seconds, after the reception of the NEL header field, during which the user agent regards the host (from whom the
Since both report-uri and max-age are required, what if we are just disabling the policy by  setting max-age to 0? Will not having a report-uri header cause the request to be invalid along the lines of the “MUST ignore ….that does not conform” comments earlier in the doc. Should uri only be required if max-age is present and >0?


But back to my main, problem: Why can’t the NEL objects be accessed via .js?

Aaron



From: Ilya Grigorik [mailto:igrigorik@google.com]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 12:52 PM
To: public-web-perf
Cc: Domenic Denicola
Subject: [navigation-error-logging] new draft proposal

We identified a number of issues with the current NEL draft at TPAC:

1) JS-based registration can be easily hijacked
2) Ability to aggregate multiple errors into a single report
3) Desire for more extensive error coverage and better delivery model
... more: https://github.com/w3c/navigation-error-logging/issues

In attempt to address all of the above, I have a new draft proposal which is based on our experience with Domain Reliability [1], and also reuses a lot of the concepts from CSP and HSTS:

https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/navigation-error-logging/new/index.html


- HSTS~like header based registration
- CSP~like error reporting for failed navigations
-- JS interface is removed entirely for security and privacy reasons, same as CSP
- Domain Reliability~like error types and report structure and delivery

In short, it *is* a significant departure from the current draft, but I do believe that it addresses all the major open issues and provides a consistent interface to similar APIs (e.g. CSP).

Would love to hear any thoughts or feedback!

ig

[1] https://docs.google.com/a/chromium.org/document/d/14U0YA4dlzNYciq2ke0StEMjomdBUN6ocSt1kN03HJ0s/edit?pli=1#<https://docs.google.com/a/chromium.org/document/d/14U0YA4dlzNYciq2ke0StEMjomdBUN6ocSt1kN03HJ0s/edit?pli=1>



Received on Monday, 12 January 2015 22:22:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:01:27 UTC