Hannes Tschofenig wrote on 9/30/07 12:19 +0200:
> thank you Chris for the pointer to RFC 3205 (BCP 56). I now read it and it is
> indeed a very interesting document. Too bad that I didn't came across it
> earlier.
> Reading through that document I got the impression that the suggestions that
> can be found in there are not exercised by today's protocol designs.

I largely support BCP 56 and as an IESG member I consider it my duty and within 
my authority to enforce that BCP using my best judgment.  However, some of the 
advice it gives could be updated to make it better and it could use advice in 
additional areas -- I would support an effort to revise it, although the 
present HTTP WG proposal may not be the right place to do that work.  I'm 
uncomfortable when my best technical judgment disagrees with common practice 
and am unlikely to use my IESG authority to permanently block forward progress 
on a document in that case.  However, when I'm aware of a BCP rule and agree 
with it, I consider it my duty at a minimum to verify the community considered 
the rule and had explicit community rough consensus to violate it.

> (c) New port number for DSKPP since the usage is so different from ordinary
> HTTP webbrowsing
> (This is quite controversal when it comes to firewall traversal and might
> require more discussions. See
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review/current/msg00090.html)
>
> None of the protocols I have been working on defines a new port. Can you give
> a reference to a recently developed protocol that carries XML on top of HTTP
> that uses a new port number?

I'll give two examples of HTTP-based protocols with separate ports where that 
was clearly the right technical choice in my opinion:
  IPP: RFC 2910
  SIP: RFC 3261

I'll also mention that the Mail Submission protocol runs on port 587 primarily, 
but can also run on port 25.  That's a practical way to (1) remain backwards 
compatible with deployed usage or limitations. (2) provide a separate port when 
it's helpful to avoid middle-box restrictions on an overused/abused port like 
port 25.

It's my technical opinion there should be a separate port registered for HTTP 
access to information used to validate security credentials (CRLs, OCSP, etc) 
with port 80 as a fallback for situations where the separate port can't be used 
and for legacy use.  It's plausible to build an Internet service where port 80 
was intercepted by default for the authentication screen, but this other port 
was (partially) open so a client can get security information necessary to 
verify the interception HTTP server's credentials.  I think that would be a 
better architecture than running everything over port 80 and forcing the port 
80 application-level middle-boxes to become ever more sophisticated and failure 
prone.

I have voted DISCUSS for discussion on this topic with document authors, but I 
have not yet blocked forward progress on any documents on this basis.

> (d) New URI scheme
> (Currently we use the HTTP/HTTPS schemes but that does not seem to be inline
> with the recommendations in BCP 56.)
>
> Neither HELD, SCVP, LoST nor DSKPP define a new URI scheme. In LoST we had a
> URL registration in the document once, see Section 16.5 of
> draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-03, but removed it later (co-author of that document is
> Ted Hardie, the former Applications Area Director).

For things that only run on port 80, I generally wouldn't expect a separate URL 
scheme.

> (e) WSDL Usage: Lisa and Chris do not see WSDL as something being useful. In
> fact, I haven't found a person who argued in favor of WSDL. Hence, I believe
> we should avoid it.

To be precise: I have not yet seen any evidence that WSDL is useful.  However, 
I have not educated myself on the protocol sufficiently to have formed an 
opinion on whether or not it is useful.

> (f) Error Codes: RFC 3205 points to the problems of defining error codes when
> applications are layered on top of HTTP. The suggestion is to essentially
> only use 200 (for complete success) and 500 (for complete failure) at the
> HTTP layer and to use "application" specific error codes inside the layer
> application itself. We are essentially doing this. The only other error
> message that is being mentioned is 403 and since it is independent of the
> DSKPP protocol interaction it should be fine as well.
>
> (g) HTTP client, proxy and server code: We added text regarding the expected
> behavior of clients, proxies and server in Section 5 of
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp-00.txt. I guess
> we are doing fine there.
>
> I am OK with (a), (b), (e), (f) and (g). I am not sure about (c) and (d).
> Help needed.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
> PS: Regarding Mime-Types:
>
> In KEYPROV with the DSKPP document we should use application/dskpp+xml
> instead of application/vnd.ietf.keyprov.dskpp+xml
>
> The IANA registry for the MIME type should look similar to the one in Section
> 17.2 of draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06.
>
> We also need to add a registry for the schema and the namespace (see Section
> 11.1 of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-02.txt for the URN
> sub-namespace registration, and Section 11.2 of for the XML schema
> registration).
>
>
>
> Chris Newman wrote:
>> I expect HTTP bindings to address the concerns raised in BCP 56.
>> Unless the primary client for your protocol is a web browser, I would
>> strongly encourage registering a separate port.  In the SMTP world,
>> the primary source of interoperability problems is application-level
>> gateways/firewalls.  At this point it's inevitable we'll end up with
>> intrusive firewalls on port 80 that will break anything beyond stock
>> browser-based HTTP.  I encourage new HTTP-based protocols to register
>> a separate port so they have the opportunity to avoid such damage and
>> interoperability problems.  It also simplifies responsible firewall
>> operation by enabling port-based service restrictions that are more
>> scalable and less intrusive.
>>
>> I have yet to see any evidence that WSDL is useful in practice but
>> that may be due to my lack of experience with web services.
>>
>> I find Relax NG and/or XML schema useful for XML-based
>> protocols/formats whether or not they are built on top of HTTP.  My
>> understanding is that Relax NG is better for extensible entity-based
>> XML formats, whereas XML Schema is better for XML formats with strong
>> value typing.
>>
>> I haven't reviewed the DSKPP draft yet.
>>
>>                - Chris
>>
>> Hannes Tschofenig wrote on 9/13/07 14:56 +0200:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I would like to solicit feedback regarding the HTTP binding described in
>>> DSKPP:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp-00.txt
>>>
>>> I went through a couple of documents that describe an HTTP binding and
>>> noticed all of them are slightly different. If you, for example, take
>>> a look
>>> at another recent work, namely HELD, from the GEOPRIV working group
>>> then you
>>> will notice that the author incorporated a WSDL binding. The draft is
>>> here:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delive
>>> ry
>>>
>>> -01.txt
>>>
>>> Do people on this list have an opinion about the content they would
>>> like to
>>> see in these type of documents?
>>> What is the opinion regarding the usage of WSDL?
>>>
>>> Ciao
>>> Hannes
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> APPS-REVIEW mailing list
>> APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> APPS-REVIEW mailing list
> APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review
>






_______________________________________________
APPS-REVIEW mailing list
APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review