Re: [core] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-12: (with COMMENT)

"Christian M. Amsüss" <christian@amsuess.com> Thu, 18 March 2021 10:12 UTC

Return-Path: <christian@amsuess.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16263A26E6; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 03:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 r35xnxurcMRj; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 03:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prometheus.amsuess.com (prometheus.amsuess.com [5.9.147.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 730F73A26E5; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 03:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com (095129206250.cust.akis.net [95.129.206.250]) by prometheus.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA202408A6; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:12:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com (poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010:a800:ff:fede:b1bf]) by poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6BBD3; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:12:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hephaistos.amsuess.com (unknown [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010:84ce:c882:cc15:d15f]) by poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D86F614E; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:12:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: (nullmailer pid 388104 invoked by uid 1000); Thu, 18 Mar 2021 10:12:28 -0000
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:12:28 +0100
From: Christian =?iso-8859-1?B?TS4gQW1z/HNz?= <christian@amsuess.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag@ietf.org, core-chairs@ietf.org, core@ietf.org, Marco Tiloca <marco.tiloca@ri.se>
Message-ID: <YFMnjKtlCm2KORmd@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
References: <161362172020.28530.15247844895355003249@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xldXQrDEN3HSt/Ry"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <161362172020.28530.15247844895355003249@ietfa.amsl.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/KrF3IT924txqTLiCx_-3BENq3x4>
Subject: Re: [core] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 10:12:36 -0000

Hello Ben,

thanks for your input, we've now taken a first round on it. While we're
editing the results in (from which there'll be a point-to-point response
later), one point would profit from earlier feedback:

> While I recognize that there is going to be a spectrum of requirements
> for determining freshness, I would have expected the far extreme of that
> spectrum to include a strongly time-limited single-use cryptographic
> nonce (akin to what the ACME protocol of RFC 8555 uses but with time
> limit), as well as discussion of some points on the spectrum and which
> ones might be more or less appropriate in various cases.  I do see some
> discussion of different use cases, but not much about the tradeoffs
> along the spectrum, and no discussion at all about the strongest
> properties that it is possible to obtain with this mechanism.

We didn't find any purpose that a strict single-use Echo value would
serve. There are cases (which are to become part of the explored
spectrum) where an action that requires one very recent event-based Echo
value. And when taken, the action produces an event / server state
change that makes that Echo value not good for anything any more. Still,
there is nothing inherently single-use about the value: For example, it
doesn't get used up if included in a safe request performed between when
it is obtained and when the action is taken.

Do you see any applications where an even stricter usable-once behavior
would be useful?

Best regards
Christian

-- 
To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers.
  -- Bene Gesserit axiom