Re: [Anima] Content-Transfer-Encoding and HTTP 1.x in ANIMA BRSKI

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 20 June 2019 16:05 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 B9DE7120130 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 ibhCSVhdbc1G for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (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 E64C5120019 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1hdzXf-0008NZ-Qi for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:04:03 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1hdzXf-0008NZ-Qi@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1hdzXc-0008Mg-I0 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:04:00 +0000
Received: from raoul.w3.org ([128.30.52.128]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1hdzXa-0002Y4-PO for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:04:00 +0000
Received: from platy.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.7] helo=[192.168.1.129]) by raoul.w3.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1hdzXa-0002eK-7j for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:03:58 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9ABB9189-CADE-4E57-9A29-1F3EA3A5CA39"
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR11MB2547DFFF1EC4B7B92D0FC9DDC9EB0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Resent-From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 20:45:19 +0000
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "draft-ietf-pkix-est@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pkix-est@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 18:03:57 +0200
Message-Id: <f2403f8d-f40b-3112-cd23-cde9ae04a74b@gmail.com>
Resent-To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <32410.1560275231@localhost> <15839.1560351718@localhost> <8a538f76-787d-de13-97f1-16195daae8ce@gmx.de> <F896BCBC-6C32-4107-B4B5-C12617F81326@tzi.org> <AD4DC1AA-C332-4BC7-B095-0CDD30700B99@cisco.com> <909.1560436148@localhost> <BN7PR11MB25473A12F646FAC8C19C1118C9EF0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <8921.1560788417@dooku.sandelman.ca> <BN7PR11MB2547DFFF1EC4B7B92D0FC9DDC9EB0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Name-Md5: efe3dad792d606410c9cc49cedaffc94
To: "Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <pkampana@cisco.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1, AWL=-0.194, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1hdzXa-0002Y4-PO 0fc0c257376b063cdcb4902fe486d162
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] Content-Transfer-Encoding and HTTP 1.x in ANIMA BRSKI
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/f2403f8d-f40b-3112-cd23-cde9ae04a74b@gmail.com>
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36730
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 18-Jun-19 05:18, Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) wrote:
>> So effectively, the CTE header has effectively been dropped, but the payload is now assumed to be base64, regardless.
>> This suggests that we can not use the CTE header as a signal.

I went and looked at RFC4648 for my own education, and then spent a few minutes
trying to design a Turing machine that can distinguish a binary bit string from
a base64 bit string. Fail. You can determine that a bit string is definitely
not base64 if it contains at least one character outside the base64 alphabet,
but not the converse. So it needs a signal. Not having a signal would be wide
open to malicious misuse, IMHO. Indicating the length of the payload would be
enough, I think.

  Brian

> 
> I am not sure I can speak about all implementations out there, but that is what I saw in my interop testing.
> 
>> One has to assume base64 encoded values for the RFC7030 end-points.
> 
> In all tests I did yes.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 12:20 PM
> To: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <pkampana@cisco.com>
> Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>; Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>; Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>; draft-ietf-pkix-est@ietf.org; ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Anima] Content-Transfer-Encoding and HTTP 1.x in ANIMA BRSKI
> 
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
> 
> 
>> Now, I don’t know how other EST clients would act. There are many out
>> there by now that we can’t safely tell if they would act up.
>> The commercial and enterprise CAs I tested with interoped fine with
>> the libest client and they were not all sending the CTE field. They
>> payload was base64 though.
> 
> I didn't read this well enough before.
> 
> So effectively, the CTE header has effectively been dropped, but the payload is now assumed to be base64, regardless.
> 
> This suggests that we can not use the CTE header as a signal.
> One has to assume base64 encoded values for the RFC7030 end-points.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Unknown Key
> * 0xFDFC4290
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org <mailto:Anima@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>