RE: WGLC comment on draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-03, was: Encryption content coding simplification

Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> Thu, 13 October 2016 17:50 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 A10A91295FE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.017
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.017 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=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=microsoft.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 kq1YrHE-Y1-K for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B58071294DD for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1buk5c-0004S5-DX for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:46:44 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:46:44 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1buk5c-0004S5-DX@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1buk5W-0004QF-Je for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:46:38 +0000
Received: from mail-dm3nam03on0098.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.41.98] helo=NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1buk5U-00077K-9r for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:46:37 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=VGiQswUVdsxMjjFnTkyjnOdKSDZrfEtGgHxPwkjJfnk=; b=I21WPfaldDwJigEJXzDSPkzMU5/l4WzXNU4nrhWy6ZI05hOzKDb23HyJRF9Vy5d8mb8u85jcoCXKoUP5wZyrmgDNTT1ZSnc9hufEF8khrKuCxOnKo4rU3HCTmjD3Om3VcPQpxhbSrkfo63uzPEXqwWUuB4+Bi0zzZzVxtyyhMXU=
Received: from BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.173.144.15) by BN6PR03MB2707.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.173.144.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.659.11; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:46:08 +0000
Received: from BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.144.15]) by BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.144.15]) with mapi id 15.01.0659.020; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:46:08 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: WGLC comment on draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-03, was: Encryption content coding simplification
Thread-Index: AQHSJSWpgw/wxQig9EORrQpSz6WmzKCmpPZQ
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:46:07 +0000
Message-ID: <BN6PR03MB27081537BD49FBF383CE66E987DC0@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CABkgnnXCMFRthQRCgvSXVjaMwE8BPTdfUYZHCa2tEwhDQ3RUpA@mail.gmail.com> <66482.1470305393@critter.freebsd.dk> <CABkgnnVYh3=pNp4aTVf5OfvskJ8yZvA4j_MDVyQ7GoZgdZO2Kg@mail.gmail.com> <49a8c514-5a39-d4f6-7012-01977cbefb9c@gmx.de> <28071.1476344375@critter.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: <28071.1476344375@critter.freebsd.dk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:5::390]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: caba3fdf-9249-4643-755f-08d3f390d010
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN6PR03MB2707; 7:iDWKd6P/JwZibE2OpVHg4wb6r3CWLwkjPsTFjRfZA5EYOyQ9M6gUhEt/ApPmQucNSTeYM9SE0+Kc/NaMpOW/PzFN84367+xnNP6j6J284P39PCzqyBRgiVeNfJK6MGQchycpQOVY9lTXdF5cxr9c9BxuVEsIw+hAdXsDJkGPTPAroxhg/o9xY0yMe87dqpTy0l1tAvk6EJQrmeKxYYN6AQm4NBH3VceXpnuwnF57gi5kAn1qCpTFGLH+XVaj77aLSMsIgyAhdMKQw2CS6TiFLi+Dpvb/MSOReqkVahrJEq5IMF1o85rT6ppW9JWisnbYIp+TT1XyEcCCFThLIfsr/BhpG7ixePPWweQa/EkxdR8zjrGBerJa3Q3We8HnOge9
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN6PR03MB2707;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR03MB270714A8B05798CDCDA09D1A87DC0@BN6PR03MB2707.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(158342451672863)(26323138287068);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038); SRVR:BN6PR03MB2707; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN6PR03MB2707;
x-forefront-prvs: 0094E3478A
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(377454003)(13464003)(199003)(189002)(3660700001)(10290500002)(74316002)(7696004)(8936002)(8990500004)(5005710100001)(7846002)(305945005)(9686002)(7736002)(93886004)(81156014)(81166006)(8676002)(8666005)(76576001)(4326007)(10400500002)(10090500001)(3280700002)(230783001)(87936001)(122556002)(2906002)(92566002)(189998001)(86612001)(54356999)(97736004)(50986999)(33656002)(106356001)(2950100002)(76176999)(101416001)(5001770100001)(106116001)(15975445007)(86362001)(99286002)(5002640100001)(19580395003)(102836003)(68736007)(5660300001)(586003)(2900100001)(6116002)(77096005)(19580405001)(105586002)(11100500001)(7059030)(3826002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR03MB2707; H:BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Oct 2016 17:46:07.8749 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR03MB2707
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=104.47.41.98; envelope-from=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com; helo=NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.461, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1buk5U-00077K-9r e7bc307d8b78d1d442d527e282cf022e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: WGLC comment on draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-03, was: Encryption content coding simplification
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/BN6PR03MB27081537BD49FBF383CE66E987DC0@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32583
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>

Well, I can point at one, though it's not exactly a model of perfect HTTP C-E integration design....  Looking at https://winprotocoldoc.blob.core.windows.net/productionwindowsarchives/MS-PCCRTP/[MS-PCCRTP].pdf, there are additional headers that carry the client's parameters (which the server will need if it chooses that coding) and then carry the server's selections back.

Most notable (and probably the worst choice :-) ) is that rather than defining a new C-E value for v2, the parameters include the client's min/max supported versions, and the server tells the client which version it used in a response header.

-----Original Message-----
From: Poul-Henning Kamp [mailto:phk@phk.freebsd.dk] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 12:40 AM
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>om>; HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: WGLC comment on draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-03, was: Encryption content coding simplification

--------
In message <49a8c514-5a39-d4f6-7012-01977cbefb9c@gmx.de>de>, Julian Reschke writes
:

>With that, I actually end up with something similar to one of PHK's
>proposals:
>
>	Content-Encoding: aesgcm, aesgcm
>	CE-params: aesgcm;key="csPJEXBYA5U-Tal9EdJi-w";
>		    salt="NfzOeuV5USPRA-n_9s1Lag",
>                    aesgcm
>
>...where the only difference is that any content coding that *can* have 
>parameters MUST have an associated entry in CE-params.

I have a hard time dreaming up C-E's other than encryption which will require parameters, but I'm all for taking the general approach up front, rather than wait for my limited imagination to be exposed.

+1 from here

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.