Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used
Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Fri, 02 March 2018 14:50 UTC
Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 738311271FD for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 06:50:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SMWHmrWiTU9i for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 06:50:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x232.google.com (mail-wr0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F303B1200F1 for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 06:50:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x232.google.com with SMTP id v111so10359974wrb.3 for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 06:50:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=F5EKxC1bXEbD8iJ8/Q04aRr5ojXI0dR0wkgCTD0xi3U=; b=UV+o+aawnSuNJ/zvG/1oZ+EmsCve5/AJ2u3aHhBZlYV1ZdA8IL3/uaPCYjvOf9lBik X8R03ua8onKdm2m8oosd6Tw5M+MzYCS9i30FU6fu66M3gBXEzGU1ucv5KjhINDWb+Hvi jYUCpGkhnv/MP6SfLcL3GUcm3KDKhIDA+m9tEfDjXy26lFQmTMxL9046dRkJ4ky/KHOR XK6RPSwe0ZS4mMoZRGT33NTuEv6cgEEmcQFngcQiISMo9XQCTcz0/YyPriVvhDTQ7KtL WKbHiHaU18mriJ7oqNwORQPf9WDuWHmSA4DXtxdf4IevrsQkqogRcH98QXsDTIhhvkN6 FcFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=F5EKxC1bXEbD8iJ8/Q04aRr5ojXI0dR0wkgCTD0xi3U=; b=tQv1tkAxRfpgW9KixcmyEuzFafbDUlSlxHXaqipx35RmyJrgZ36Th3aXcRPmJGkE0q +gf0twEDYfw1pl+yWbR9qRxnKDxlM5RLtCO3AwaxLLW7Xl5nABueBGXFP2fNDrxscdcJ rXmoLDclfDS4leq39i1wkZlaNX0CysGXaB8xOe0g1++Kbz/XLBv6uRuNgI7wtKptk/NG QVnAg9mm+gRuGrVKH7WnYuSOf/kq1Z11yksZQNGJADpEeqd/OqXWiM4A/Ax0vnqKIAiU Rv+JtG/gtrGifbhiNDyUzgK7WwtFsyN6qRIhrH+E0utgzmCpiyveGDOkOWUUF6SdDpQv Nxyg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAq6XP3BjzUHl0vxt376A8pkcLM9HDe+tYJF+CPfdBSt/XX8358 XJ9SAiJTXmq6T8prdGBuAM/Wz9PYqmqGWt36B8pskA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELt00esF/yGK9ykfo0wC40GPuSkkGLjakf8tfKjXbtGQr6JpeBSYuImGzlIc4T9Hbfg/mzIQRKVDAHfAH706E0o=
X-Received: by 10.223.171.167 with SMTP id s36mr4946432wrc.52.1520002222347; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 06:50:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.12.140 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 06:50:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMmAzEKMffffrxAihotVWPpqy=LaRkpSJuW9CpSVoQfLQ-nBwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180103230734.GM21695@carrot.tutnicht.de> <20180103234718.GA1340@bacardi.hollandpark.frase.id.au> <CAMmAzEKj33xOVhUK+i2UrHpvTBj=hz89DRyaFvTqAig4f66K-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMmAzEKSv1pbKC80JLpRQxTrGApc7KVu6A7cqDp-Tmrcq4vvLg@mail.gmail.com> <20180104110204.GP21695@carrot.tutnicht.de> <CAMmAzEKJhMaUBtCWSNZyGv-f+-edZ-WTq3=WFD_b1bXfvua89A@mail.gmail.com> <20180106001126.GB3076@carrot.tutnicht.de> <CAMmAzELgjpAmVCX6YB0VMvNQV3NH3NDdM_pdcz6d+h=ZO2rJww@mail.gmail.com> <CAMmAzEKMffffrxAihotVWPpqy=LaRkpSJuW9CpSVoQfLQ-nBwQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 09:50:21 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgRLXkkQECF5ssGh39uFL0xJp-3EODxGSQVzfPuEnE7FgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Logan Widick <logan.widick@gmail.com>
Cc: Jörn Heissler <acme-specs@joern.heissler.de>, ACME WG <acme@ietf.org>, Fraser Tweedale <frase@frase.id.au>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113b37b6856e0e05666f186f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/E8936z7_Vqer3ItFNHb7A_lxRWA>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment <acme.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/acme/>
List-Post: <mailto:acme@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 14:50:26 -0000
Hey all, I merged #395 last night (thanks, Logan!). While I was reviewing that, I noticed that we need to cover the case where the client sends an encoding that the server doesn't understand. So I've posted a follow-on that adds an error code and requires its usage. LMK if you have any objections, otherwise I'll merge before submission on Monday. https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/398 Thanks, --Richard On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Logan Widick <logan.widick@gmail.com> wrote: > I've created a new pull request (https://github.com/ietf-wg- > acme/acme/pull/395) to partially address the lack of serialization format > specification. This pull request requires use of the Content-Type HTTP > header to indicate the serialization format of the outermost JWS. The pull > request also includes restrictions on the serializations (no detached > payload, no unencoded payload, no unprotected header, etc.). In addition, > the pull request bans multiple signatures, regardless of the > serialization used. The use of the Content-Type header, and the list of > currently possible serializations, is mentioned in its own subsection of > "Message Transport". > > The pull request does not contain advice on how to convert different > serialization formats before and/or after use with a pre-existing JWS > library. I have started on a separate conversion guide ( > https://github.com/uhhhh2/jwe-jws-serialization-conversion-guide) for > that purpose. > > The pull request does not specify how a "nested" JWS should be > serialized. However, I have included an outline of one possible approach to > this in the pull request's description. > > Please let me know what you think about the pull request ( > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/395), and the separate > conversion guide (https://github.com/uhhhh2/jwe-jws-serialization-c > onversion-guide) > > Logan > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Logan Widick <logan.widick@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Last night, I briefly surveyed the listings of JWT implementations on >> jwt.io. I could find only a small handful that appeared to support all >> serializations, and even fewer that appeared to give programmers control >> over what serialization was produced. Thus, assuming jwt.io is a >> sufficiently accurate and comprehensive listing of implementations of all >> and/or part of the JOSE specs, the developers of many ACME client and >> server implementations may find themselves needing to convert between >> serializations before and/or after using JOSE libraries. Such conversion >> processes, if needed, should be well-documented somewhere. >> >> I've started on a very rough draft of a possible JWS and JWE >> serialization conversion guide at https://github.com/uhhhh2/j >> we-jws-serialization-conversion-guide. I made the conversion guide draft >> by copying a few items from the ACME GitHub repository (the Markdown file, >> the makefile, and the .gitignore), replacing the text from the Markdown >> file, and renaming the Markdown file. I designed the conversion guide draft >> to be non-ACME specific, so I've tried to include things like unencoded JWS >> payloads, JWEs, multiple signatures, detached payloads, etc. If you have >> any changes or suggestions, please let me know. >> >> Logan >> >> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:11 PM, Jörn Heissler < >> acme-specs@joern.heissler.de> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 08:03:55 -0600, Logan Widick wrote: >>> > What do you think of the following: >>> >>> > Content type application/jose+json: MUST be supported. If used, the JWS >>> > will need to be in the Flattened or General serialization. Flattened >>> MUST >>> > be supported; General MAY be supported. >>> >>> > Content type application/jose: MAY be supported. If used, the JWS MUST >>> use >>> > the Compact serialization. Or should this content type not be allowed? >>> >>> Agreed. I wouldn't disallow "compact". And it could be clarified: >>> >>> The server SHOULD use the "Content-Type" HTTP header as an indication >>> for the request format. >>> >>> > JWS Unprotected Header: Not currently used in ACME. Should this be >>> banned >>> > in ACME? >>> >>> I don't see much sense in those. But some client implementations might >>> automatically add an unprotected header like e.g. "cty". >>> Maybe with a "SHOULD NOT"? >>> >>> > Multiple signatures: MAY be supported. >>> >>> > Should messages signed by both MAC keys and private keys be allowed? >>> >>> This is already forbidden. >>> >>> > What about Key IDs not issued by the CA? >>> > Or are multiple signatures more trouble than they're worth to the >>> point of >>> > banning them entirely? >>> > >>> > Multiple signatures on messages that need to be signed by account key: >>> At >>> > least one signature MUST be from the account key >>> > >>> > Multiple signatures on revokeCert: Should this be allowed? >>> > >>> > Multiple signatures on externalAccountBinding field of newAccount: >>> Should >>> > it be possible to bind to multiple pre-existing accounts? Or should >>> this >>> > not be allowed? >>> > >>> > Multiple signatures on newAccount: Not allowed? >>> > >>> > Multiple signatures on keyChange: Not allowed for outer or inner JWS? >>> >>> I see no use case. All the authentication is based on accounts and those >>> have exactly one keypair. Having multiple signatures would equal using >>> multiple accounts at the same time. That makes no sense to me. >>> Client libs would probably not generate multiple signatures >>> automatically. >>> Multiple signatures should be banned in my opinion. >>> >>> > JWS Unencoded Payload Option (RFC 7797): Not allowed? >>> >>> Yep, they would make things very complicated. >>> >>> > Conversion guide between the different JWS serialization formats: Is it >>> > completely safe to assume that any and all programmers given the JWS >>> RFC, >>> > pre-existing JWS implementations with sufficient documentation, and >>> > pre-existing JSON libraries with sufficient documentation could figure >>> out >>> > how to convert the serialization formats as needed? >>> >>> Why, yes! Of course every programmer can do that! ;-) >>> >>> > Or is the conversion >>> > guide necessary? If the guide is necessary, then include a reference >>> to a >>> > separate new or pre-existing conversion guide. If the guide is >>> necessary, >>> > and there is no pre-existing conversion guide, how should the new >>> > conversion guide be published? Should the new conversion guide be >>> > ACME-specific, or more general (possibly with coverage of JWE as well >>> as >>> > JWS features not utilized in ACME)? >>> >>> It's not necessary, *most* programmers can figure it out. But it would >>> doubtlessly be helpful. E.g. I didn't consider the possibility to do >>> this conversion in an ACME implementation before/after using a >>> preexisting >>> JOSE lib. >>> If such a guide were to be published, it should not be ACME-specific. >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> Jörn >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > Acme@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > >
- [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Jörn Heissler
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Logan Widick
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Fraser Tweedale
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Logan Widick
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Logan Widick
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Jörn Heissler
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Logan Widick
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Logan Widick
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Jörn Heissler
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Logan Widick
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Logan Widick
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Richard Barnes
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Felipe Gasper
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Logan Widick
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Richard Barnes
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Logan Widick
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Jörn Heissler
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Jörn Heissler
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Logan Widick
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Jörn Heissler
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Logan Widick
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Richard Barnes
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Martin Thomson
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Martin Thomson
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Richard Barnes
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Martin Thomson
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Richard Barnes
- Re: [Acme] Specify which JWS serialization is used Martin Thomson
- [Acme] Concerning alternative formats … Felipe Gasper
- Re: [Acme] Concerning alternative formats … Jörn Heissler
- Re: [Acme] Concerning alternative formats … Felipe Gasper
- Re: [Acme] Concerning alternative formats … Matthew D. Hardeman
- Re: [Acme] Concerning alternative formats … Felipe Gasper
- Re: [Acme] Concerning alternative formats … Richard Barnes
- Re: [Acme] Concerning alternative formats … Martin Thomson
- Re: [Acme] Concerning alternative formats … Matthew D. Hardeman
- Re: [Acme] Concerning alternative formats … Felipe Gasper