Re: [drinks] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 19 March 2015 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ED711A6EFE; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 8bqCNErkhx7H; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B1C71A005C; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F97DBEC4; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:55:03 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3NhDEwYtW4dK; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:55:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.73] (unknown [86.46.20.71]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94813BEB5; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:55:01 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <550B1B85.1040501@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:55:01 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietf.org
References: <20150205143342.20868.94024.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL02cgRQ3UJT0o3vBzgjcKo0ALOcD75wNRxBxrKs7NTcpc7wyA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgRQ3UJT0o3vBzgjcKo0ALOcD75wNRxBxrKs7NTcpc7wyA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/drinks/OV6zfyyPPoVEps9SFvXQartsyyw>
Cc: "drinks@ietf.org" <drinks@ietf.org>, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [drinks] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG <drinks.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/drinks>, <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/drinks/>
List-Post: <mailto:drinks@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks>, <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:55:08 -0000

Hiya,

On 19/03/15 16:21, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Authors: Any response to Stephen on this?
> 
> For my part: Stephen, are you seeing some risk associated with a MUST for
> Digest?  

I'd have to go re-read, but no I think I just wanted to check
in case that triggered a light bulb moment I think. (And of
course because digest is a POS;-)

S.

> It doesn't preclude implementations from *also* using TLS client
> authentication, and it seems to agree with the general direction of having
> a required minimum level of security.
> 
> --Richard
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: 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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> I just want to check one thing...
>>
>> Section 5: why is there a MUST for Digest auth?  What'd be
>> wrong with TLS client auth here?  I do wish the WG had
>> considered some alternative to passwords, which don't make so
>> much sense in this use-case.  (BTW: You could chose HOBA here
>> I guess, but that's still in the RFC editor queue and not
>> supported by libraries so perhaps doesn't suit. But it'd work.
>> I'm an author of the HOBA spec though, so I'm biased:-) Anyway
>> - can you tell me if the WG considered dropping passwords
>> entirely and mandating TLS client auth be implemented?  If the
>> WG seriously considered TLS client auth already, I'll just
>> clear.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> - General: why would one want to ever run this protocol
>> without TLS? Did the WG consider saying that TLS MUST be used?
>> Again, if you tell me you thought about it, I'll just clear.
>>
>> - 7.1.2: The framework uses "Identifier" but here you use
>> "Identity" - it'd be better to be consistent I think and
>> "Identifier" is a lot better.
>>
>> - section 11 is weaker than the corresponding section in the
>> framework draft. Two things: 1) why not point back to the
>> framework here? 2) shouldn't you say which of the
>> vulns/mitigations called out in the framework are relevant or
>> mitigated here?
>>
>>
>>
>