Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-10

Hervé Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr> Mon, 26 January 2015 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072351A1BE6; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:29:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.26
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 4GTYWOKeWzsU; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:29:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from inari-msr.crf.canon.fr (inari-msr.crf.canon.fr [194.2.158.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8194D1A1BE5; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:29:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mir-bsr.corp.crf.canon.fr (mir-bsr.corp.crf.canon.fr [172.19.77.99]) by inari-msr.crf.canon.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t0QHTOcM030393; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 18:29:24 +0100
Received: from Antiope.crf.canon.fr (antiope.fesl2.crf.canon.fr [172.19.70.56]) by mir-bsr.corp.crf.canon.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t0QHTN59018114; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 18:29:23 +0100
Received: from timor.intra-usr.crf.canon.fr (172.20.3.149) by Antiope.crf.canon.fr (172.19.70.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 18:29:20 +0100
Message-ID: <54C6796F.5000104@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 18:29:19 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?SGVydsOpIFJ1ZWxsYW4=?= <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
References: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362DE459@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <CABkgnnUwNQUcFg5w5HFpSQrAUxtbqG_UN-_WDGop1eqqoCS+Aw@mail.gmail.com> <1421779730757.42642@crf.canon.fr> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362E9050@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <B42673AB-2819-42F5-BC63-6418449FC030@piuha.net> <54C13996.2030906@crf.canon.fr> <0A78F531-9E8E-4ED1-BD8F-AAE70684DB24@piuha.net> <CABkgnnVBCK-yy9WitKCVqitcXssOHgBc2c+3UeRO09mAHa3A8Q@mail.gmail.com> <54C23CC5.7050901@cs.tcd.ie> <54C267DE.5040202@crf.canon.fr> <ABFED3B4-D37D-4498-9280-3C071EB00892@piuha.net> <54C26C8E.50507@cs.tcd.ie> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936310012@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936310012@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.20.3.149]
X-ClientProxiedBy: Antiope.crf.canon.fr (172.19.70.56) To Antiope.crf.canon.fr (172.19.70.56)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/WOm-xQlmeKnJ_Xc_3aOc0SfvkbQ>
Cc: "fenix@google.com" <fenix@google.com>, "General Area Review Team \(gen-art@ietf.org\)" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-10
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:29:33 -0000

I tried to integrate all these comments, as well as those of Martin on 
GitHub into: https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/704

Hervé.

On 01/23/2015 05:51 PM, Black, David wrote:
> This sort of guidance will definitely be a useful addition.   A little
> more wordsmithing on Stephen's proposed text follows:
>
>    The decision on whether a header field is ok to
>    compress or
>    not is highly dependent on the context. As a generic
>    guidance, header fields used for conveying highly valued
>    information, such as the Authorization or Cookie header
>    fields, can be considered to be on the more sensitive
>    side. In addition, a header field with a short value
>    has potentially a smaller entropy and can be more at
>    risk. We know that compressing low-entropy sensitive
>    header fields can create vulnerabilities so such
>    cases are most likely the ones to not compress today.
>    Note though that the criteria to apply here may evolve
>    over time as we gain knowledge of new attacks.
>
>
> OLD
>    We know that compressing low-entropy sensitive
>    header fields can create vulnerabilities so such
>    cases are most likely the ones to not compress today.
>    Note though that the criteria to apply here may evolve
>    over time as we gain knowledge of new attacks.
> NEW
>    We currently know that compressing low-entropy sensitive
>    header fields can create vulnerabilities so compression
>    of such fields ought to be avoided.
>    This guidance may evolve
>    over time as we gain knowledge of new attacks.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie]
>> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 10:45 AM
>> To: Jari Arkko; Hervé Ruellan
>> Cc: Martin Thomson; Black, David; ietf@ietf.org; General Area Review Team
>> (gen-art@ietf.org); fenix@google.com; ietf-http-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-httpbis-
>> header-compression-10
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23/01/15 15:35, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>>
>>>> I made a proposal at
>>>> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/704
>>>
>>> Looked reasonable to me.
>>
>> Me too. Quibbling, I'd suggest:
>>
>> OLD:
>>
>>   The decision on whether a header field is sensitive or
>>   not is highly dependent on the context. As a generic
>>   guidance, header fields used for conveying highly valued
>>   information, such as the Authorization or Cookie header
>>   fields, can be considered to be on the more sensitive
>>   side. In addition, a header field with a short value
>>   has potentially a smaller entropy and can be more at
>>   risk.
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>>   The decision on whether a header field is ok to
>>   compress or
>>   not is highly dependent on the context. As a generic
>>   guidance, header fields used for conveying highly valued
>>   information, such as the Authorization or Cookie header
>>   fields, can be considered to be on the more sensitive
>>   side. In addition, a header field with a short value
>>   has potentially a smaller entropy and can be more at
>>   risk. We know that compressing low-entropy sensitive
>>   header fields can create vulnerabilities so such
>>   cases are most likely the ones to not compress today.
>>   Note though that the criteria to apply here may evolve
>>   over time as we gain knowledge of new attacks.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> jari
>>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUwmyOAAoJEC88hzaAX42iJKkIAJtbLdBsQe12+yyg47yupU9x
>> xbJJ8WZj7vN9Owc9DbzPUczcejjxPUETWwiJ4gzGEnqOTgkH4Ljbt3DnZO1OrdwL
>> J5sdie+/x85WuimEgz8GLeOvHe3vyKAJzRIGuX4c4PFgxQ2EBQTJwMM9/qBx9Wp4
>> gLNSMmvd0DT8mfozQokju4H4SsxEgFWIERpDO1Has/3ska0u0qhCrJgIdSSWWn08
>> yvsjoPDfp+SPEJOa+vWoWqP971QXaGsm5lnhPDLTJ+u06cWpzeQerOEmS3dMYX4A
>> 0gcR73olUgS9gqVQ/HIYDKLxsOX3DXH0QSJhHOgYrE6GNPUX2bz7npN0PP7+x0s=
>> =Txbn
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----