Re: Client-Cert Header draft

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Fri, 17 April 2020 19:29 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 E14313A119A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 12:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 PkGjPs26uVau for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 12:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FC093A1197 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 12:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jPWfj-0001y0-Cu for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 19:29:07 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 19:29:07 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jPWfj-0001y0-Cu@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>) id 1jPWfi-0001tb-6M for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 19:29:06 +0000
Received: from mail-wr1-x42e.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::42e]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>) id 1jPWfe-0001le-NH for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 19:29:05 +0000
Received: by mail-wr1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id d17so4310409wrg.11 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 12:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6leg9HTARyHm18qqf7zVsmUztWT0Uye+7NodAq30VOs=; b=p5gnz1nDuSPlo6hRXiZF2xlHdeIKW6p2Vi8Y01PWMIfDB2zdio4kI11P+3fxPReh++ OUTid90OAUEpA5Tiq7mecQwH8Tzb+xIUXgM8cGJ39Uo/jpCwj0oVlrA88FD+9glbaNBh Zw6gBz18AjcspFJgfbp8AoUJLKIo1zQUiYKUhkUIDEQ/wL+3+IsDKjeN12KW2jImc5KG wAxeoGBjFKftACpz/S7WbGvmkZY/peM6eYA0ZEkdTsj5cMF/ry5BtBkLyXsrWBneqm9J sCwU5Nsr+KwpSir+F/fftN4c6GUaoTa4Ij9mxumWx9uceg3ZcSXFGlqYrFIwStlwXSYS VwOw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6leg9HTARyHm18qqf7zVsmUztWT0Uye+7NodAq30VOs=; b=KeZ59o1NWaeO/yN/vpq0sF5H/FYmhA209uoJA+J6zpsOZuFsoe1CZnAdfiDY9pZelw wWfACKT6GzDjk0w1j/FBHHQGO2O2r/F1ESduU/rTPpZ6Z3aqEl5EN0JHl54SarLasYN5 vbd0gH12FOui+sa+RsGyJQxJPdy+V2JjvqYXzUOc8o/S2yzlIbEodJYX3C7Ev9S5OV2G hNzhCyU6Aa+rFeWQk0/B8pTC6SWWcdhFtMJajX5wF+ETh6vR989WJ1UgA4AuG6mOi/SD awOrqjKE4LVXvhvvl9X9d9VQu+pdBXUzhfb7BW51yHD/BQbOw4iBJ3OqJ3ND/VnmXm/0 qXPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZSjDfhlcI9ggiPVLsVpmg2n+sgrE71HxQQUmGpo1Q/ofRySF8g mlYocVqxj9HKi+72LIbwruwx9w+aoVv5Hh6okPkk6g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLiAixmlCJZesV76lRZSLBtD5G4Jvw6cLYk9Nzw3QMn15dWGuBXCTg9wVLIxlqzS9mfEDgPjbtu4CsguPPOTJA=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6148:: with SMTP id y8mr5386618wrt.236.1587151731073; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 12:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+k3eCRQhuS9TyEVdF6ZAfLSyPngjDLvctUTc++2Ok+RJmw0qA@mail.gmail.com> <CH2PR22MB208612E57276557568F843E2DAD90@CH2PR22MB2086.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CH2PR22MB208612E57276557568F843E2DAD90@CH2PR22MB2086.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 20:28:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGR9oaEiWBa3gqH1YiiqaQSprQ7XDAem8+VgD+qJq8KZwUv-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
Cc: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000022a5d005a3818f2e"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::42e; envelope-from=lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com; helo=mail-wr1-x42e.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1jPWfe-0001le-NH 00847e1fa7fb14fc74d0839a207fa5ba
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Client-Cert Header draft
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CALGR9oaEiWBa3gqH1YiiqaQSprQ7XDAem8+VgD+qJq8KZwUv-A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37514
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

+1 to everything Mike said

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020, 20:24 Mike Bishop, <mbishop@evequefou.be> wrote:

> Despite the distaste for client certificates from some quarters, they are
> still both used and useful.  I’m certainly interested in seeing this
> progress.
>
>
>
> In today’s situation, the intermediary checks that the cert matches the
> rules it has been given to authenticate clients, and only forwards the
> requests from valid clients.  Arguably, the origin is offloading less trust
> in this draft’s model – the intermediary is responsible for validating that
> the client possesses the claimed certificate, but might leave the origin to
> decide what scope of access the certificate actually grants.  That allows
> finer-grained access control, but also allows greater ability to send
> requests back to the origin.  It also opens the door for intermediaries
> which don’t support this header to accidentally forward requests containing
> it.  Requiring intermediaries to drop it doesn’t get you much, since only
> those intermediaries aware of the spec will comply by dropping the header.
> To help address these, I’d like to see this mix in something that the
> intermediary holds and the client doesn’t, such as an exporter from its TLS
> connection to the server.
>
>
>
> But all that is refinement – the core concept here is beneficial, and I’d
> like to see more engagement here.
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2020 5:01 PM
> *To:* HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Client-Cert Header draft
>
>
>
> Hello HTTP Working Group,
>
>
>
> I've somewhat inadvertently found myself working on this draft
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bdc-something-something-certificate/,
> which aspires to define a "Client-Cert" HTTP header field that allows a TLS
> terminating reverse proxy to convey information about the client
> certificate of a mutually-authenticated TLS connection to an origin server
> in a common and predictable manner.
>
>
>
> I presented the concept
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/107/materials/slides-107-secdispatch-client-cert-http-header-00>
> at the recent virtual IETF 107 secdispatch meeting
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/107/materials/minutes-107-secdispatch-00>
> and the outcome from that was basically that there seems to be some
> interest in pursuing the work and the suggestion that the conversation be
> taken to the HTTPbis WG (and also keep TLS WG involved - presumably if the
> work progresses). And that's what brings me here. I also hope to get a
> little bit of time at one of the upcoming virtual interims to
> present/discuss the draft.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited..
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
> your computer. Thank you.*
>