Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-04
review-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-05-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-06-03
Requested 2015-05-21
Authors Andrew Hutton, Justin Uberti, Martin Thomson
Draft last updated 2015-05-22
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Scott Kelly (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-05-22
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2015-05-22

Review
review-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-05-22






I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>




Document:                                     draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-04.txt




Reviewer:                                        Christer Holmberg




Review Date:                                  22 May 2015




IETF LC End Date:                          3 June 2015




IETF Telechat Date:                       6 June 2015




Summary:                                     The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. However, I have a few editorial comments, and one
 technical question/issue.




Major Issues:





Q1:




As the ALPN header field can contain multiple, comma separated, header field values, I don’t think the ABNF is correct. It should be something like:







ALPN = "ALPN":" protocol-id *(COMMA protocol-id) 




Minor Issues: None




Editorial Issues:




 




Section 1:




-------------




 




Q1_1:




 




The text says:




 




“Proxies do not implement the tunneled protocol”




 




Are proxies prevented from implementing any tunneled protocol? If not, should the text say “Proxies might not implement the tunneled protocol”?




 




 




Q1_2:




 




The 2

nd

 paragraph says:




 




   “The HTTP ALPN header field identifies the protocol that will be used




   within the tunnel, using the Application Layer Protocol Negotiation




   identifier (ALPN, [RFC7301]).”




 




…and the 3

rd

 paragraph says:




 




   “When the CONNECT method is used to establish a tunnel, the ALPN




   header field can be used to identify the protocol that the client




   intends to use with that tunnel.”




 




Do you need both sentences, or could they be combined into a single sentence?




 




 




 




Q1_3:




 




The text says:




 




“For a tunnel that is then secured using TLS [RFC5246], the header field carries the same application




protocol label as will be carried within the TLS handshake.”




 




I think it would be useful to add a reference to RFC 7301 after TLS handshake:




 




              “…be carried within the TLS handshake [RFC7301].”





 




(The draft does reference 7301 earlier, but that is related to the definition of ALPN.)




 




 




Q1_4:




 




The text says:




 




“The ALPN header field carries an indication of client intent only.




              An ALPN identifier is used here only to identify the application




              protocol or suite of protocols that the client intends to use in the




              tunnel.  No negotiation takes place using this header field.  In TLS,




              the final choice of application protocol is made by the server from




              the set of choices presented by the client.  Other substrates could




              negotiate the application protocol differently.”




 




What if TLS is NOT used? Who makes the choice of application protocol then? What if the recipient does not support, or does not want to use, the protocol(s) indicated by the client?




 




 




Section 2:




-------------




 




Q2_1:




 




The text says that the ALPN header field will contain the protocol that will be used within the tunnel.




 




I think “will” is wrong wording, as the recipient has the final saying on what will be used. Later in the document the text says “intended to be used”, and I think that would fit here too.




 




 




Section 2.3:




----------------




 




Q2-3_1:




 




The text says:




 




“For a CONNECT tunnel that conveys a TLS session that in turn




              encapsulates another protocol,…”




 




The text is confusing. Shouldn’t it simply say “A tunnel that is secured using TLS”, or something?




 




 




Q2-3_2:




 




The text says:




 




“When used in the ALPN header field, the ALPN identifier and registry




              are used…”




 




What is meant by “registry” here?