Re: 2nd Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-03.txt

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 19 October 2016 14:50 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 A915A1294A5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 07:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 tkpyR5pLNJH7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 07:50:56 -0700 (PDT)
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 4288312968A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 07:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bws9f-0004d8-GW for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:47:43 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:47:43 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bws9f-0004d8-GW@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1bws9Q-0004cG-Jz for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:47:28 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1bws8v-0007Gz-1Q for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:47:27 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.123] ([5.10.171.186]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LrevR-1cxGLP14Bx-013LPU; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:46:18 +0200
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
References: <147607568231.30483.6721771001967558206.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <06660B0E-6F8D-42DF-A909-C216B49FB590@mnot.net> <03fb16fd-35d4-e5d3-86d4-317b1016829e@gmx.de> <CABkgnnWKOTheZ9Gf9WLfVWAsQwNWi=EM6LhX=Za+UXnXQkf6AQ@mail.gmail.com> <90ee7958-5697-23ad-6f52-060f58800067@gmx.de> <7720.1476858421@critter.freebsd.dk> <7c879010-2145-fabc-9f97-d05de90e5147@gmx.de> <30011.1476886408@critter.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <18d7f584-a303-f218-24ec-abf0c341f436@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:46:16 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <30011.1476886408@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:ypX9CwQW3a3t0OPGV2r64hxxXRLKAMmkt0KfcN1WiBWZb3fMaen 32gL+po2QNF67we9ifKCQ4x0O3S1OKMlJ4U0UQKY0ZTFusS1ySG6UL/co19VSCFrlQCEAr6 XpIUzCEIGrpYkrl8w3cOA+BbcPmmZogs6ATY0Vs4pyHfGzi7M2aYjXNKS3nTpR3oREPK5Jd RsFToKTmHD+mCiDeKM8QQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:6hlF2SWRrz8=:M7WgI+EC+e8BRIOkljFEEq 22waeAWVaxsW4cw5MahiT9G8CrP1uQeP6q/xHKSm5q4yuhFfOElS2nDnLxiXqCatIr0z6g4ty Urcku9WogQ/aYOT5jzKmTrKEl6wMsQGR5KwISuBbDq5P2/vOUy6j0YEbZfzeZGKVne322HnN3 XAXtJ18AlpYnZzNNtUyk3nAk6MMkOgfaP992OF7XUitcWueTz/diu79g/w6zXwrt2TUzAqudC e7gYMo1fBxdYC/aSJMcSnZlZDgM0Y/Je5yS55cQWhycJ7BY0dhdXfIFPFLjCDYdBUcQAkHnxw 9jUW65Amp7dWoleZ2Z1k+Q2jz3iuCeTcRqm/u6gwk2slBtrJDGrDzLIBXuCAjzCqL/EEZSHec Pa/s5UCuHFWbh7UUvzjzXmRaD9GBFuaHcOcVBQtME6BzJN/nTfNgcCOx7R+4TsFh7z/qSC9pO uZN6tHBH6FPExtZdnm6DtI564a6KSFBTJpCNVIlr0Klxp17aPBX25+7gLhibFBQqwgyTQ1E2b Zyz1WoxG3xQwMxgUnceMN0+e9q/qsGHZxCwpKL5OXQxZmOBS/HO0DKyMWJ2uzNTBzen+px2LG j6dGdIxSchN6Y/xcUkjC12Vbae1o/28xP0ktn69wHQEww8pA+/dSj5jD7i7JOoshF/sA+aR/u 3cDnBdQbnjcmcbDaMIJCJYOlccERS9yBlnR97JphIna5Qfo49VbO9SwEba8Ib+1Ek91eMmC03 RpcaH1Kh4fNfM1dMScOauBD/aIJTSLuswjitzpHtB/VkCbU0FXFIfNQPEQXlcx9uq/3HqCUFv QdB3eZ9
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.22; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, TIME_LIMIT_EXCEEDED=
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bws8v-0007Gz-1Q eb1741c971fec26c2ee19b21453e6509
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 2nd Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-03.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/18d7f584-a303-f218-24ec-abf0c341f436@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32638
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 2016-10-19 16:13, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> In message <7c879010-2145-fabc-9f97-d05de90e5147@gmx.de>de>, Julian Reschke writes
> :
>
>>>    HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>>>    Content-Type: text/html
>>>    Content-Encoding: gzip, aesgcm
>>>    Transfer-Encoding: chunked
>>>
>>>    {magic marker}
>>>    keyid="me@example.com".com";
>>>    salt="m2hJ_NttRtFyUiMRPwfpHA"
>>>    {magic terminator}
>>>    [encrypted payload]
>>
>> Because you might want to ship the parameters somewhere else. See
>> example in
>> <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-oob-encoding-08.html#rfc.section.3.5.3>.
>
> Yeah, I thought about that, but the more I study it, the more I don't
> see why HTTP needs to get involved in either activity.
>
> All this stuff can be done with existing HTTP mechanisms, by defining
> a new C-E which carries its own metadata in the body, like all other
> C-E's, and the enourmous advantage of that is that it is backwards
> compatible.

But how would you handle the case describes above -- where the metadata 
(content type, encryption material) is served from a server different 
from the one having the (encrypted) payload?

Best regards, Julian