Re: signatures vs sf-date

Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com> Fri, 02 December 2022 15:02 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 159C7C14F736 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 07:02:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.951
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9rOSA-mXO9Jt for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 07:02:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5519FC14F728 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 07:02:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1p17Xu-009O6B-Pz for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2022 15:01:46 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 15:01:46 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1p17Xu-009O6B-Pz@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>) id 1p17Xs-009O4t-Ub for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2022 15:01:44 +0000
Received: from welho-filter4b.welho.com ([83.102.41.30] helo=welho-filter4.welho.com) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>) id 1p17Xr-004C15-86 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2022 15:01:44 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by welho-filter4.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94AA567E93 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 17:01:30 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi
Received: from welho-smtp1.welho.com ([IPv6:::ffff:83.102.41.84]) by localhost (welho-filter4.welho.com [::ffff:83.102.41.26]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9fohlHde6Isj for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 17:01:30 +0200 (EET)
Received: from LK-Perkele-VII2 (87-92-216-160.rev.dnainternet.fi [87.92.216.160]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by welho-smtp1.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 711A07A for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 17:01:29 +0200 (EET)
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 17:01:29 +0200
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Y4oTSfoMHkYLsbA1@LK-Perkele-VII2.locald>
References: <2070c8e0-98d6-7b63-77c3-550bcd661397@gmx.de> <04A5CE20-A291-4FA4-A330-FB1090697EA1@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <04A5CE20-A291-4FA4-A330-FB1090697EA1@mit.edu>
Sender: ilariliusvaara@welho.com
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=83.102.41.30; envelope-from=ilariliusvaara@welho.com; helo=welho-filter4.welho.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1p17Xr-004C15-86 9ff46fb90426651697b7d14119367ae6
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: signatures vs sf-date
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/Y4oTSfoMHkYLsbA1@LK-Perkele-VII2.locald>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/40621
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>

On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 02:25:32PM +0000, Justin Richer wrote:
> 
> It could, but I don’t think it’s worth delaying signatures over. There
> are two timestamp fields (created and expires) with clear semantics,

- If signature is created during (positive) leap second, then the
  previous second is written as creation time[1], right?

- The expires is exclusive endpoint[2] (e.g., expiry at 2400Z is
  marked as expiry on 0000Z the next day), right? 


[1] All the APIs that give unix timestamps I have seen work this way.
However, adjtimex() (it does not just set the clock, it can get the
clock as well) return value can be used to correct the clock.

[2] One would think that expiry times are always exclusive, but X.509
has inclusive expiry time (e.g., expiry at 2400Z is marked as expiry
on 235959Z the same day).



-Ilari