source: wg_materials/ietf85/minutes.txt @ 2498

HTTPbis IETF85 Minutes
======================

Session I
=========

WG status
--------

no bashing

Change overview
---------------

-21 drafts are out and in LC

overview of changes made in the latest draft (substantial only)

no feedback on the changes that were made in the -21 drafts

ACTION: mnot to create a ticket for https caching exception

Security Properties
-------------------

mnot raised the issue of security properties of http and the current
status of the draft (draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-05)

barry leiba: not sure that this has any correspondence to reality; if
we adopted something better than basic then we would not need this
(according to S Farrell); not sure what this really has to say

mnot: it needs to more specific if it is to be useful, which limits its
lifetime. This is a product of a bygone era, and we might not have the
expertise to finish this sort of work, regardless of the merits of improving
security as a goal

bleiba: suggested that this be moved to the new authentication bof and
resulting wg

=JeffH: did this as a measure of charity; there might be people who can do
this within this group; i may not have time to continue this myself

bleiba: murray will do it

roy fielding: we haven't added all the security considerations

mnot: are there missing considerations for the broader web

rf: there are http considerations, but those should be in http
documents; if there is anything left, then we can look at that

jh: there is a lot of good stuff that should be written down; but I
haven't done the gap analysis

eliot lear: I agree with the chair that you need implementor interest,
no matter where the work is done.  Is there that interest?

mnot: there might be some stuff from here that belongs in drafts, but
some is clearly out of scope

el: please put it to bed

bl: this predates our existing security considerations, which may be
adequate now

sean turner: this would be good to have and it is part of the charter

bl: can you (st) read this and make a recommendation to the group?

mnot: obviously web security has problems, but whatever we produce has
to have some relevance

st: you can force the issue by going to last call; or set a time limit
for "put up or shut up"

mnot: it's still pretty draft-y


Other LC Documents
------------------

rf: last call comments thus far received should take only a short time to
resolve

rf: concerned about the lack of review in p5

mnot: jreschke is expecting to go to proposed standard and to move to full
standard once we've gone through the http/2 process and discovered all the
bugs

mnot: can we go full standard?

alexey melnikov: no


active issues
-------------

jr: (most of these arefrom Dan Winship's review of p1; I haven't
entered those for p2 yet)
===395
rf: do we allow some leniency
mnot: this could just be statements of fact
rf: ok
mnot: do we have other requirements around connection: close ?
mnot: it could be prose
ACTION: make SHOULD statements on Connection header handling prose
instead of 2119 language

### 397

ACTION: put the exception for OPTIONS request to a proxy and the resulting URI

### 22

just tbd, no real issue

### 350
mnot: we can close this one

### mnot's WGLC p1 review

rf: asks for fresh eyes over the drafts

mnot: asks about what is specific to HTTP as opposed to HTTP/1.1; what
can we do to improve the way that this could be made reusable for
HTTP/2

no conclusion

#### What are the parsing requirements for obs-fold with respect to the MUST?

rf: if you can find no interoperable folding implementations, then we
can remove it from the grammar [[scribe: may not have got this right,
action more important to capture]]

ACTION: mnot to run some tests on folding to understand its interoperability

#### shared caching on https

rf: the statement in question only applies to agent-side
intermediaries and user agents, not to content accelerators, which are
part of the origin server

rf: some user agents use a common interface to make the request, then
have separate logic to decide how that information is made available
to other users

rf: to know whether it is safe to send to other servers, you have to
know the content

mnot: you can use Cache-Control

...some disagreement here

roberto peon: there are transformative intermediaries; we don't need to
specify this

mnot: need to know who this applies to

rf: this applies to libraries in clients

mnot: segregation... a shared cache can even apply to the same box

martin t: 'never "public"' contradicts what has been said about caching rules

paul leach: override

Patrick McManus: on a phone, different apps can share the same network context

ACTION: follow up on this issue


### on US-ASCII or a superset of it

mnot: moving on


### on whitespace between start-line and headers

rf: I thought there was some guidance on this

mnot: we should find that text

rf: S19 should not have had any normative requirements in it

mnot: we can remove this then

mnot: think about consolidating the list construction rules that are
specifically called out for Transfer-Coding

rf: this defines the framing and more explicit rules were asked for

mnot: ok

### for render as complete or consider as complete

kevin falk: are you prohibited from using particular code blocks to users?

rf: the important consideration is that the user is able to learn that the
information is incomplete

julian r: that is getting ignored in practice

brian smith: we (Mozilla) ignore this requirement, pages are already displayed

mnot: would it be OK to show status in the web console?

rf: not really

bs: there are UX considerations that make this more difficult than it
would appear

bs: there's not much difference between XHR and the render as HTTP clients

jr: we could add an indicator

ted hardie: visual indicators are not necessarily universally applicable

rpeon: there is a lot of confusion stemming from this statement,
prefer the parenthetical

bsmith: no idea about how XHR works, though it does have streaming
modes; script developers are important

will chan: chrome ux people didn't like the idea of having something in chrome

rf: this is a safety/security feature

kfalk: incomplete !== error

julian: there is a related issue about truncated *downloads* (as in
"save as"); Eric Lawrence once blogged about it
(<http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinternals/archive/2011/03/09/browsers-accommodate-incorrect-http-content-length-and-sites-depressingly-depend-on-it.aspx>)

pmcm: rathole, we (Moz) do very little prescribed error handling and
it's strange spending time on this when there are many others; tried
to rollback rendering when MD5 sum failed, got immense push back

mnot: maybe this should be prose

ACTION: Roy to make this prose text in the security considerations

#### whitespace tolerance in headers and the requirement
to product a 400 when the message doesn't match the grammar

#### no enumeration for the hop-by-hop headers that are not required to be
added to Connection header.

rf: this will be forwarded if they aren't in the connection header;
having a list would cause problems with intermediaries that pass these

mnot: this could surprise some people and should be called out

rf: this should be noted as a change from 2616

jr: we already have this

mnot: we probably need a callout for this one

rf: I'm trying to reduce the number of occurences of this; they don't
help the people reading the document for the first time


Server Ranges
-------------

<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kfall-httpbis-server-ranges-00>

mnot: this doesn't really mess with semantics, it only messes with
intermediaries to the extent that range requests are hard to do anyhow

mnot: streaming and ranges require the complete size to be known,
changing the length would not be possible

kfall: that is not part of the proposal

pleach: does this work with unmodified implementations?

kfall: not known

pleach: profile...

mtho: prefer might help to signal (all/some)

mnot/kfall: makes sense

bsmith: if the server provided less, would we be able to render it?
the spec seems arranged around the idea of a "complete message", this
might need to be re-addressed

mnot: disagree, this should be addressed and if you can find something
that isn't, please bring it up

rf: yes

kfall: what now?

rf: how much testing have you done with clients that expected the bits
that they requested?

kfall: that's in part why we asked

rf: testing first might determine how to proceed with this, if this
kills an existing client, then this is a no-go

mnot: 206 is close enough

mnot: mumble, mumble, vary...

rf: vary isn't so relevant in this case, it's for selecting representations

mnot: fine

ACTION: kfall to review -p5

draft-fielding-http-key-01
--------------------------

A not-dumb Vary header

roy outlines the idea that you can make a request without headers to
avoid the fingerprinting thing, detect the variances that might occur,
then make more requests

cyrus daboo: key == too generic

roy: I don't care if its confusing, and number of bytes on the wire

jr: application/*+json, globbing conneg

roy: no, breaks stuff



Session II
==========

ticket #385: upgrade mechanism 
------------------------------

<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/385>

### TLS Upgrade for HTTPS URIs

See thread rooted here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012OctDec/0143.html

mnot will send the message suggested in that above message to the tls chairs
and show up in the TLS session this afternoon

### Upgrade for HTTP URIs

Gabriel M. is going to present on upgrade-based negotiation for http/2.0 --
which is one approach to addressing the issues in the "http uris" section of
the issues outlined in the
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012OctDec/0143.html> mail
msg

roy at mike: don't need to prefix the header fields; they're just header fields

mnot: it's side channel info, for optimizing

roy: as soon as sent in http1.1 they're just a header field, register them,
don't need prefix

jhil: would those http2 things get stripped out?

gabriel m (gm): yes

<mbelshe> mic: have any tests been run to confirm viability in the wild? as
presented before, data shows port 80 has trouble with non-http1.1 protocols.
or do we just want to ignore that?

mnot to mike belshe (mb) -- we're getting there

gm @mic: <discussing fine points of upgrade>

phb@mic: 1st thing is successful upgrade, 2nd thing is what to do if it fails

jhil: is there a timing issue with expect 100 continue ?

mnot: do an upgrade and combine with expectation?

roy: wouldn't normally do that. the 1st request you make shouldn't be a large
state changing operation

roy: so you send options or GET first (so it's not a packet loss issue)

jhil: so perhaps need note about that in spec

mnot: discussion we need to have is whether a upgrade like this is workable
for us -- in hybi they figured that about 70% conns using this would be
successful, rest would fail

fielding: you don't upgrade a request while sending a large body and Expect
100-continue -- it is simply not a use case that is relevant. It might work
quite well, but it simply isn't worth being concerned about.

mnot: so perhaps deploying using this it'd encourage the internet to upgrade,
but only if we have fast failure fallback

patrick mcmanus (pm) @mic : in FF, doing 6455 (?) the TLS success rates are
substantially better than the plain success rates. Roughly 80% with TLS, maybe
almost 70% with plain HTTP

<Eliot Lear> mic: what did success mean in this case?

salvatore@mic: its true we had not so good success rate with plain upgrade,
but lots of boxes will be upgraded, and they (?) just relaeased boxes with
spdy support and [we'll see what happens (?)]

mnot: there'll be several versions of the protocol out there because we're
going to try various approaches

mnot: the upgrade mech needs certain capabilities, eg supporting opportunistic
use of TLS

mnot: calling for data on how upgrades are working -- with data we have now,
it seems if we design this thing well it';ll either succeed or fail fast ----
wondering about what folks thing whegther we should go down "this path"

<Eliot Lear> mic: should pursue this path, but need more data.

pm: let's talk about the other approaches

mnot: ok, another approach is "Using a SRV (or other DNS) record" (from
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012OctDec/0143.html>

mnot: have heard that there is general interest in using DNS as a mech, and do
folks think we shouldn't use SRV?

<Eliot Lear> Mic: NOT in favor of SRV.

ekr: this is 1st time mention srv, realise that the TLS server id check you do
is with name you started with, not with the one srv gives you

mnot: yes

jeffh: <thinks rfc6125 discusses this>

<Eliot Lear> Mic: What are the goals? Please be specific!!

<mbelshe> mic: is there a serious proposal around srv? or is this at the
brainstorm stage?

mnot: we're at the brainstorm stage

cyrus d (cd) @mic: i get http://example.com and running http/2 on that, but on
example.com:88 running http/1 ....

pm: if uri contains port, then we're not going to do the srv lookup (?)

phb@mic: the dns is where u make assns re names; should bind names & prots "in
dns"; there's practical issues with doing this; in how clients use dns; don't
nec use srv; want to use dnssec; so going to use "new dns" world anyway; and
so may want srv+ <eg need to invent new dns stuff>

pm: this is more work everywhere, u can set this up; and so in one round trip
get all info u need, can mux with this btwn http 1 & 2 and whatever, <missed
stuff> so this approach gives some nice benefits

? @mic: if u get a diff port from srv, do you use that?

mnot: there's a lot sec related concerns here need to be careful

eric nygren (en): having srv records would be an advantage; addtnl benefit is
having sep servers handling http/1 and http/2 -- help deployment

mnot: inclined to say this (srv/dns stuff) will be a work item for us

mnot: upgrade mech should start in main draft ...3d mech " 2) Using a response
header to hint that HTTP/2 is available on another port" from
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012OctDec/0143.html>

<Eliot Lear> ted: there are still often many different http servers running on
different ports of the same host

roberto: <comment about upgrade detail>

Martin Thomson: Enumeration is: TLS nextproto, HTTP upgrade, srv or other DNS
record, alternate-protocol header

mnot: start developing DNS based, and a response header based mechanism as
well. Selected editors for core HTTP work, Martin Thompson, Aleksy Melnikov,
and Julian Resshke will be helping out

Eliot Lear: I volunteer to develop at least one DNS-based proposal

mnot: don't want to put all work on them


header compression
------------------

<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/wiki/HTTP2Compression>

Herve Ruellan slides on HTTP Header Encoding Results
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-httpbis-1.pdf

jhil: think about impact on mobile devices such as power required ?

agl @mic: so now spdy compression has issues with trying to avoid crime attack

rp: but its still useful as baseline

mnot: see github.com/http2/http_samples - this is a corpus of header samples;
har files from pcap captures.

cd: what about webdav et al?

mnot: if you want to submit traces for that, please do

jhil: prob need some enterprise traces because of strange cross-domain cookies
we see, but need to anon them

mnot: ... but not concerned about pathological cases

jhil: but might help show which compress scheme is better

mnot: next thing come up with script that analyses this stuff, and eg can emit
a pathological case, and then run compression algs on it and see how it works

rp: can do this in python & work with mnot

roy: http2 is not a minor hack -- need to do it carefully -- perhaps we should
have better encoding for header fields, eg cookies are huge, this could be
binary, if we define an encoding, then can encode cookies when sending over
http and get diff comp results

mnot: we can define new headers that have diff encodings eg binary, and then
downgrade them to eg txt when sending over http/1

roy: a cook header field, obviously can't change that due to existing
browsers, but browsers just store it and replay it; new thing doesn't have to
be compat with existing cookies, so if svr has choice to send short cook
rather than long one....

mnot: two diff things here, one is http1 <-- > http/2 <--> http/1 w/o loss;
the other is doing stuff in http/2 that are new ( and then needing to
downgrade new stuff into http/1 as nec )

mnot: if u can compress a bunch of requests down to fit in one underlying pkt,
then that's very powerful, esp in mobile world; inclined to keep that in mind
when selecting compression approach; .need to keep memory & cpu & power
overheads in mind

rp @mic: web app developers shouldn't have to opt their site to "make it fast"
-- rather should make protocol fast

mnot: yes

phb: what about patent issues in compression?

mnot: they'll have to disclose

phb: if u make disclosure call now it has implications down the road

mnot: we'll deal with that later

mnot: we prob won't choose perfect comp mech for all time, thus negotiate comp
mech?

mnot: if upgrade mech is adequate, then can include comp mech in that, but if
too much optionality there, that's interop probs

mnot: would be nice if can put it into debug mode to see stuff on wire -- so
question to be able to turn comp on/off ?; .thoughts on this?

rp: perhaps can put stuff in there to make debugging "easy" rather than "turn
it off"

mnot: roberto wants to talk about http/w compression
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rpeon-httpbis-header-compression-00

roy: yes, the compression ratio gets better if you send garbage on the wire

roy: notes that a fixed id space is essentially a registry in machine readable
form

rp: yes; but its not a reg that needs to be maintained after its created

martin thompson (mt): dont understand where huffman encoding comes into play?

rp: draft needs work; what is huffman coded is the text in the headers. ran
analysis over sample of headers, and then used that to gen id space

<PHB> seems to me that we are maybe doing this the wrong way

rp: hopefully impl code for this is better to understand than the I-D at this
point :)

mnot: so we know sorta where we going on compression stuff, want to get impls
plugged into the http2 namespace on github -- the more visible we can make
this the better

<Martin Thomson> the question was: do you have a note well on the repo

#387: server push
-----------------

We need more data / experience.


Other Issues
------------

### Flow Control

gabriel montenegro (gm) -- flow control principles for http 2

hildjj: we need TSV help for this part.

roy: init exchange over tcp, client begins; with this do you expect server to
send anything first wrt state?

gm: in spdy there's default 64k per stream

rp: basically need default for safety reasons, but a better FC mech than spdy3
exists, hopefully will be proposed, can make larger than 64k by defualt

ted hardie(th): what impact if doing multipath tcp under this? 

gm: yes need to figure out interaction with newish tcp stuff under it

mnot: is FC tightly bound to what xport's properties are?

gm: yes

rp: <nods yes>

jhil: we need early involvement by transport folks, don't wanna make buffer
bloat worse

rp: don't think that's possible

will chan (wc): would hope that FC in http/2 doesn't subvert xport FC; want to
make sure we saturate link; this should be one of the principles

gm: thinks link saturation depends on how the <sliding window / credits >
work; don't have to solve now

alison mankin (am): if receiver has FC turned off by intermediary, that messes
stuff up.

gm: but receiver controls it for his hop. is concerned about middleboxes at
http layer; at that layer the proxy has to heed what endpoint (receiver)
wishes. still concerned on traps that may be there

rp: there's finite buffering available for entire path length; if receiver
says stop, it'll stop eventually; but as soon as an intermediate is in the
path, they have influence on FC

gm: we need to codify the rules in the base spec

mnot: gm will have draft coming out, please review. FC will get a new issue #


### Priorities

pm: priorities need discussion

mnot: will create issue for that (framing, diff frame sizes)

rp: want to agree and disagree wrt priortzn stuff -- need more experimentation

mnot: sure, may defer disc of these issues, but want to get em written down


### Mapping to TCP

eric nygren (en): mapping to tcp -- need to disc

mnot: yes, need optional draft on "how i use tcp"

rp: agree with en that'll be issue, might wanna address earlier, need to get
sec folk thinking about that

en: also has implications for prototcol upgrade mech, signalling may make this
easier or harder


### Framing

gm: did u raise issue on framing itself? 

mnot: it will get raised; specific concern; useful for e.g., sendfile()

Wrapup
------

mnot: am gratified to see folks working on drafts; continue doing that; will
use wiki to record current state of proposals; interlink to issue #s; will
also use github; will hand out access to (sub) repositories; the actual drafts
will be in ietf subversion service;

mnot: f2f meetings are effective for work like this, involves lots of folks,
need to confirm decisions on list, tho possiblities of interim meetings, may
be good idea here in earlier phase like this, current plan is interim mtg in
Jan 2013, 2..3 days, offer from Ian Fette to host in Tokyo, need to get dates,
maybe mid Jan to early Feb, pls send dates ideas to mnot

mnot: any more biz ?

phb: discussing compression -- was of msgs, not conversations -- in mobile --
sending "pages" with lists of links --- but maybe do html-conscious
compression ?

jhil: don't we get some of that with svr push?

en: if start with http1, include an encoded blob of handshake framing?

mnot: that's in category of cool tricks we could play. 

mnot: keep drafts coming, will send minutes out soon, if hold this interim
mtg, want to make it useful 

adjourned