Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Kathleen Moriarty" <[e-mail]>]

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-04: 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://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The SecDir review called out an important point on authentication &
authorization for 

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05748.html

The SecDir review has the the fuller set of questions.  Here is the
summary:
   "The draft never says what the proxy should do if the client makes
one claim
   in the ALPN header, but then does something different (including
using different
   ALPNs in encapsulated TLS negotiations). Seems like it should.

   Also, the draft seems to suggest that it is okay to use the ALPN for
policy/
   authorization decisions. This is unreliable from a security
perspective. At minimum,
   I think the draft should explicitly call this out."  

It seems to me that authentication relies on TLS.  Maybe stating this
explicitly would address the concern?  Is there a reason this should be
in the ALPN header(I'm not sure of that, just asking)?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Stephen's discuss and comments.