Re: [alto] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Qin Wu <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Roman:
Talking with Kai recently, he confirmed two issues raised in the Discuss (2023-10-23 for -17) 
Have been addressed. The latest version is v-21.
Also he mentioned that his response to your email sometimes got filtered for some unknown reasons, I hope you have received Med's follow up and my followup. 
Thanks!

-Qin (on behalf of chairs)
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
发送时间: 2023年12月7日 16:18
收件人: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
抄送: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
主题: RE: [alto] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Roman, 

This is a nudge to check whether the revised spec and the clarification provided by kai addressed your concerns.

For convenience, the changes made since your review can be tracked here: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-17&url2=draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-21&difftype=--html

Thank you

Med (Doc Shepherd)

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : alto <[e-mail]> De la part de [e-mail] 
> Envoyé : dimanche 29 octobre 2023 13:27 À : Roman Danyliw 
> <[e-mail]> Cc : The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 
> draft-ietf-alto- [e-mail]; [e-mail] Objet : Re: 
> [alto] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-alto-new-
> transport-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Roman,
> 
> I hope you are OK with our responses to your DISCUSS points. This is 
> the follow-up update regarding your comments.
> 
> First, for the comment on Digest authentication, we agree that this is 
> a fair request as RFC 7285 says Digest authentication is mandatory. An 
> example using Digest authentication is added in Sec 6.3.
> 
> For the comment on mandating RFC 9325, I am a bit hesitated to do so.
> First, this seems a bit repetitive as Section 15.1.2 in RFC 7285 
> already says
> 
>   "Software engineers developing and service providers deploying ALTO
>    should make themselves familiar with possibly updated standards
>    documents as well as up-to-date Best Current Practices on 
> configuring
>    HTTP over TLS."
> 
> Second, RFC 9325 seems to be applicable to any protocol building on 
> top of TLS, not specific to ALTO. It is also applicable to any 
> extension to ALTO. It feels a bit weird to add something that is 
> broader than the scope of the extension specified in the document, 
> especially when it does not require specific attentions to the TLS 
> layer.
> 
> We could certainly add a sentence saying that developers of this 
> extensions should follow RFC 9325 if you think this is really 
> important. Otherwise we intend to not include the discussion on TLS.
> 
> Best,
> Kai
> 
> > -----Original Messages-----
> > From: [e-mail]
> > Send time:Wednesday, 10/25/2023 17:57:00
> > To: "Roman Danyliw" <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: "The IESG" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], 
> > [e-mail], [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [alto] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on
> > draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >
> > Hi Roman,
> >
> > Thanks for the review. Please see inline.
> >
> > Best,
> > Kai
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Messages-----
> > > From: "Roman Danyliw via Datatracker" <[e-mail]> Send 
> > > time:Tuesday, 10/24/2023 10:40:46
> > > To: "The IESG" <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail],
> > > [e-mail]
> > > Subject: [alto] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on
> > > draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> > >
> > > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> > > draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-17: Discuss
> > >
> > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to 
> > > all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to 
> > > cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Please refer to
> > >
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
> > > w.ietf.org%2Fabout%2Fgroups%2Fiesg%2Fstatements%2Fhandling-ballot-
> po
> > >
> sitions%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Cb767734f0
> > >
> 9704481993708dbd87a6810%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7
> > >
> C638341792466819799%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ
> > >
> IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mqO
> > > DvELZY%2BRRd%2BP5DXCADt80aHoBoZ4mMHrxf8sspPw%3D&reserved=0
> > > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT
> positions.
> > >
> > >
> > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
> here:
> > >
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fda
> > > tatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-alto-new-
> transport%2F&data=05%
> > >
> 7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Cb767734f09704481993708dbd87a
> > >
> 6810%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638341792466819799
> > >
> %7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI
> > >
> 6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0w%2FEszcA1tbg0DdXEVs6
> > > unVMO8OD19xLN%2BZLJtDQCyA%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > > --
> > > DISCUSS:
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > > --
> > >
> > > ** Section 6.2.  Construction of the "tips-view-uri".
> > >
> > > -- Under what circumstances would it be appropriate to use http 
> > > (instead of
> > > https) for the tips-view-uri for this new protocol mechanism?  Why 
> > > is http needed?  Could https be the only option?  I appreciate
> that
> > > there is history of an http URL from RFC7285 published in 2014,
> but
> > > has field experience continue to dictate a need for this insecure 
> > > approach for an entirely new service?  If it is needed would there
> be a away to express a preference for secure transport?
> > >
> >
> > [KAI] One reason I can think of to keep http is to allow caching of 
> > incremental updates (whose uri is based on the tips-view-uir) for a 
> > given resource whose content is intended to be publicly accessible, 
> > which could happen if the server is hosted by the ISP and a cost map 
> > is intended to be accessible by all its users. How about we add the
> following sentence in sec 6.2:
> >
> >   An ALTO server SHOULD always use "https" unless the ALTO resource
> is intended to
> >   be publicly accessible and does not raise any security concerns.
> >
> > > -- Is there any underlying assumption in how "tips-view-path" is 
> > > constructed? I asked because Section 9.3 says "An outside party
> that
> > > can read the TIPS response or that can observe TIPS requests can 
> > > obtain the TIPS view URI and use that to send fraudulent 'DELETE'
> > > requests thus disabling the service for the valid ALTO client.
> This
> > > can be avoided by encrypting the requests and responses (Section
> 15
> > > of [RFC7285])."  Observing the tips-view-uri is one way to spoof
> the
> > > URI, but what if it could be guessed?  Is there an assumption that
> a
> > > unguessable random string is part of the path?  As far as I can 
> > > find, no text explicitly says that, although the examples imply
> it.
> > > If the string is guessable being encrypted doesn't help but using
> some kind of authentication would.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [KAI] In -17, the fraudulent 'DELETE' issue no long exists as we now 
> > require the server to close of TIPS views, as suggested by the
> HTTPDIR
> > reviewer and the AD. I think that would address this issue.
> >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > > --
> > > COMMENT:
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > > --
> > >
> > > Thank you to Donald Eastlake for the SECDIR review.
> > >
> > > ** Section 6.3.  The example in Figure 10 describes Basic Auth.
> > > Section 8.3.5 of RFC7295 notes that Digest Auth is MTI.  Recommend
> using that instead.
> > >
> > > ** Section 9.
> > >    The security considerations (Section 15 of [RFC7285]) of the
> base
> > >    protocol fully apply to this extension.  For example, the same
> > >    authenticity and integrity considerations (Section 15.1 of
> [RFC7285])
> > >    still fully apply;
> > >
> > > Since ALTO TIPS is a new protocol mechanism is it possible to 
> > > improve on the TLS guidance in Section 8.3.5 of RFC7295 (from
> circa
> > > 2014)?  Specifically, can
> > > RFC9325 be mandated?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > alto mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > >
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
> > >
> w.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Falto&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucad
> > >
> air%40orange.com%7Cb767734f09704481993708dbd87a6810%7C90c7a20af34b40
> > >
> bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638341792466819799%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs
> > >
> b3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%
> > >
> 3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=N5ABDN%2BLaxE7ZcWS4%2FNstmxjOldJiwiZtsw1yDZ
> > > T6Cg%3D&reserved=0
> > _______________________________________________
> > alto mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> >
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> >
> ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Falto&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%
> >
> 40orange.com%7Cb767734f09704481993708dbd87a6810%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48
> >
> b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638341792466819799%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW
> >
> IjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%
> >
> 7C%7C%7C&sdata=N5ABDN%2BLaxE7ZcWS4%2FNstmxjOldJiwiZtsw1yDZT6Cg%3D&rese
> > rved=0
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Falto&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%
> 40orange.com%7Cb767734f09704481993708dbd87a6810%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48
> b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638341792466819799%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW
> IjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%
> 7C%7C%7C&sdata=N5ABDN%2BLaxE7ZcWS4%2FNstmxjOldJiwiZtsw1yDZT6Cg%3D&rese
> rved=0
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.