Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-04

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Sat, 12 November 2016 07:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37AB61299CB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:45:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 xfKrvjwXzhgU for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:45:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 069971299CC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:45:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c5SyP-0001gO-Ji for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 12 Nov 2016 07:43:37 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 07:43:37 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c5SyP-0001gO-Ji@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ekr@rtfm.com>) id 1c5SyK-0001fb-9H for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 12 Nov 2016 07:43:32 +0000
Received: from mail-yw0-f179.google.com ([209.85.161.179]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <ekr@rtfm.com>) id 1c5SyE-0000Rb-7T for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 12 Nov 2016 07:43:27 +0000
Received: by mail-yw0-f179.google.com with SMTP id r204so31377134ywb.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:43:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ESnOe/Vdnz40f/5uS4QYuYARslwb8djB1PivJeU6t0E=; b=eINpxOm10s/J8BlUIaWmqg/m9boru90JI+DsalYuMGvdB14kA5vYJ+s7jI2RvKDPLi 87xQ3n/k4w3zsWffwLPhY8LNlA0rk2Ik2yi4y6OzhLMI/E7j0a1lALLUwCPK3SoT+3qE 1pZRYaW7XMFJeuIODvm0itdHTKmD8p+Vuj9pR5bTZq5J3ocQuXbbs1ldU3otIR8BdcLn p35qUIKhYLsDcioS7RYzsVXHbh60/n43smLG8Q0RQ6cUgKrAEPUjGWVbdJzlXRw6pUf/ 6cw2TGmSP4W04sF7uTlGDu16YU0NG5cgA+JXMyCNnpC2FnSPM0D+7QFiTirBnm6MI0lh LD8Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ESnOe/Vdnz40f/5uS4QYuYARslwb8djB1PivJeU6t0E=; b=ZSL6BVHSdu8T8izZjUIHT5YZNNHKY7EKdcWSlDg3RjlRPycnv9xS7UuG4cere9U26Q FfSnTg3+3L8JE395BrmEscWpzKBTJPOQNt8zB8wEcwxl10LQmadUlozat3QVc1VWlA+V qlfVQuhsw+6g7bFr8P2+Fqrf7H0zi3wEY06V+eBK195KVVnxy7aQyoPLm0FT+RHShDmd Uvu2CPJTfBKAjeehRgKtlxpA6YreiGMd7TQNyV4XrANYuofmuYNwl5EaezcC/4oK56Nl r70A+WUFf3hbF15reoVnlExEWv1ioxavxCr2qpzwQ3QpyfeCvGTH+JJk3XeIJaMrS3Y0 GKDA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngveJHSq9vIoSwDTenrxM1eFJ+RYT865G8AgCfQHo3MVDRdABr49M1jdXw+89LIqs+9rDsA9kA6I/L56Uzw==
X-Received: by 10.129.53.194 with SMTP id c185mr6380395ywa.205.1478936580314; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:43:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.159.141 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:42:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <a3f3a4e0-5be3-f619-d2f8-cdda6ce2ed1e@gmx.de>
References: <CABcZeBN3B9eYqN0i5abfDmJp+6N86ETwOKfDjCZrkf9AuZ=hdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnV3m-_PO1CKYxy=jYaBY0f72LdSqXxkdNdma1d6AM0MEQ@mail.gmail.com> <a3f3a4e0-5be3-f619-d2f8-cdda6ce2ed1e@gmx.de>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:42:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOQg5Yzxi_A=LMbgvqjX8qn_goeTcOHgYSfs87DLKAZ7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1142147884075f054115c19a
Received-SPF: none client-ip=209.85.161.179; envelope-from=ekr@rtfm.com; helo=mail-yw0-f179.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.451, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1c5SyE-0000Rb-7T 059f7758f6ae12c652492683f3aaa8fa
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-04
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABcZeBOQg5Yzxi_A=LMbgvqjX8qn_goeTcOHgYSfs87DLKAZ7A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32871
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:

> On 2016-11-12 07:56, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>>> S 3.
>>> This whole Crypto-Key thing seems like a menace. As has been noted,
>>> it's a terrible idea to provide Crypto-Key and encrypted data
>>> for the same key in the same HTTP message, but that's the only
>>> thing you see to support:
>>>
>>>    The value or values provided in the Crypto-Key header field is valid
>>>    only for the current HTTP message unless additional information
>>>    indicates a greater scope.
>>>
>>> Do we have a concrete use case for Crypto-Key? If not, I would remove
>>> it. If so, I would consider writing a different spec.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe we can discuss this in the meeting, I don't have any objection
>> to this.  I like deleting code.
>> ...
>>
>
> One use case is over here: <https://greenbytes.de/tech/we
> bdav/draft-reschke-http-oob-encoding-09.html#n-example-invol
> ving-an-encrypted-resource>
>
> If "Cryto-Key" isn't defined in the base spec, any other spec that defines
> how to pass around the key information will have to define it itself. That
> doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
>

But what's defined in the spec is only useful for the existing message. It
seems to me like this should be in a different spec...

-Ekr


>
> Best regards, Julian
>