Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies?

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Tue, 03 January 2012 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 1579121F852C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 17:21:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.459
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7zgB4KvDAVlI for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 17:21:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19A0D21F852A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 17:21:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Rht2j-0000za-Ou for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 01:19:57 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1Rht2b-0000w8-AI for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 01:19:49 +0000
Received: from ip-58-28-153-233.static-xdsl.xnet.co.nz ([58.28.153.233] helo=treenet.co.nz) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1Rht2W-0006ET-2T for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 01:19:46 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (unknown [119.224.36.238]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE5DE70DA; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 13:36:51 +1300 (NZDT)
Message-ID: <4F024DA0.7080707@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:36:48 +1300
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com
CC: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, oauth@ietf.org
References: <301AF9A4-395C-4B5A-8610-CD86BEE1401A@mnot.net> <abe2950b95b27818e9e6ebddc99a7b7e@treenet.co.nz> <4EFE7E22.9010200@treenet.co.nz> <4F014DF3.9030105@alcatel-lucent.com> <4F016837.3040904@treenet.co.nz> <4F018048.1020900@lodderstedt.net> <4F019E09.3070007@treenet.co.nz> <4F022CFA.80907@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F022CFA.80907@alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: permerror client-ip=58.28.153.233; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Rht2W-0006ET-2T b40af7b3c426047a718f9c268081c5ab
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4F024DA0.7080707@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/11959
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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Rht2j-0000za-Ou@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 01:19:57 +0000

On 1/2/2012 7:07 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> On 2/01/2012 11:00 p.m., Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> general note: I do not understand why caching proxies should impose 
>>> a problem in case TLS is used (end2end). Could you please explain?
>>
>> Because TLS is hop-by-hop (in HTTP hops, end-to-end only in TCP 
>> hops). Proxies which decrypt TLS and provide responses out of cache 
>> are already deployed in many places. Mostly in the form of 
>> reverse-proxies, but corporate decryption proxies are also on the 
>> increase.
>>
>> AYJ

On 3/01/2012 11:17 a.m., Igor Faynberg wrote:
> I am at a loss here; granted, it is a gray area...  Does it mean that 
> RFC 2817 has not been implemented properly?
>

 From RFC 2817:
"

5. Upgrade across Proxies

    As a hop-by-hop header, Upgrade is negotiated between each pair of
    HTTP counterparties.  If a User Agent sends a request with an Upgrade
    header to a proxy, it is requesting a change to the protocol between
    itself and the proxy, not an end-to-end change.
"

The more common case is CONNECT method from RFC 2068, from a user agent 
to a reverse-proxy. Same behaviour.

> To make it simple: At the client, I establish a session key with the 
> server, and then use it for confidentiality.  How is this key known to 
> any proxy?

  "the server" is a proxy.

AYJ