Re: Client-Cert Header draft

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 17 April 2020 22:34 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 495CB3A0877 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.641
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 KiyiXrV85qW0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:34:32 -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 C70853A087D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jPZW2-00050u-6O for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 22:31:18 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 22:31:18 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jPZW2-00050u-6O@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ekr@rtfm.com>) id 1jPZW1-0004zv-C5 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 22:31:17 +0000
Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ekr@rtfm.com>) id 1jPZVx-0001yC-Ox for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 22:31:16 +0000
Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id 198so3082501lfo.7 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=A93bB4w1fDxfKpjrF2osa0dOPrsk/SUbzDdOoyx3E7c=; b=hEWBwpI9JfUOV/AP/SkaTN94fGlDUA5tO/TB5VSeDE4z48V+aRwPHinOlvIjy+BkAF 78Hsv5VZYKPrfqZwrpm8IRvhu5Jn2LuN9i7kbaELE3YeEBmKR8oV2qkWtLr+BWfpDC2o G5iGvF92PKgoqVhmh4AIoKwc1AwUX2v7LQEE8AeCglcWZk91rtmPe6MTdkfYdUo4k8PD JdN5mwmm1Igvz8+6xtUCwMSgXNqSbP0+PFH8D04PoT5bfdAtVPk9903IFo9hmAIHNsxd 9yx/TRDG+zlCYa9s5cqf4ygnGfoLdd0hJ7ceLwVd6jQx8njULJClzPJmhv9ywNILcePB 2T+g==
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=A93bB4w1fDxfKpjrF2osa0dOPrsk/SUbzDdOoyx3E7c=; b=KHxSRhbXrFy1JiKA1wE6QWOdq6uo/p6EZs9M9UVF//0NjApcjUn5rUT/jeaIAyVmd9 LaylDuQrsk6zGXQpfcCwQLbb8ViHblodgtQjkocvXwvyBKsnn73Ezd6SVB1A5f41NKs4 Nsc9y7bRyLFNdnfK5iHeY1GZ+9ocQMLST7i9/f4BkHqrceYzFF9Lsu0C7C8Of4CsvXxt xbXk+kx7BJw6YRiBN1d3DtaWRV3t6HZDSd28AFkWWInmYP4BnkK3UE1iLfR5dt2o8SOK tbv2Q6AkmkyqJF/i9w2PqzWgcgaa5ZMDEv8PbzhT6h8z8SwH4BxeAsGcBS0omuBwk+bZ R+6A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYseivSzv+jcum4/O3+PeYpiqZJsCia911U1eMde2IwSTKDLNVu dGYTBtM9PoZGFaoCYNl97d7U9+zdNVMHed6bGuTvgA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypILTJz5oD3C+ii4QJgERNydk5USEttEcezMXBRvbbRXQReG+ZT9tL6TCnE6SZFMcG1KQUsEML0KH+dV6CQ0Tgw=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:40d0:: with SMTP id n199mr3425489lfa.161.1587162661327; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:31:01 -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: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:30:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNTgB9PiTn8nnGyQcZOG6W19aaZnwJh09VEJcceS=8-7w@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="000000000000a1267d05a3841a91"
Received-SPF: none client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::136; envelope-from=ekr@rtfm.com; helo=mail-lf1-x136.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1jPZVx-0001yC-Ox 214e5dfa687f090986b97f8e56da2d11
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Client-Cert Header draft
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CABcZeBNTgB9PiTn8nnGyQcZOG6W19aaZnwJh09VEJcceS=8-7w@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37518
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, Apr 17, 2020 at 12:23 PM 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.
>

I'm sure unsurprisingly to nobody, I second Mike's comments here.

-Ekr


>
> 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.*
>