Re: [jose] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com> Mon, 21 December 2015 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <sakimura@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087B21A8740; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 06:55:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Rou44KIpEnDA; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 06:55:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x235.google.com (mail-ob0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2AFB1A873A; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 06:55:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-x235.google.com with SMTP id iw8so123869109obc.1; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 06:55:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ANgZBgYe0vmDY9yp38kLlt867eikWm1p3SoFn40K3VU=; b=Vdfnel3NZFnRTmxnUV7f2dH0OywXPVvHVCvraBAfMrDWl89PxAc5J+aZqUqvQ36dUK 4T8tO0z0kAmjolzlfpZdwBMq+3WblG9njFADqzV3+0FpFqS+uJHfrqqkIv4zsQbioHUJ fDFcoOC347pAexMz1RJ8tIVRS7Wq68ViNZxdgbZQynV6YTtDVRaTrd26UPsAgAOhPMwD FU0H2Tfbcnih2aTC3QIFbjGXNXwAC+uOTXar/+4kT22LbDbb1wr5HcU19wHHmZThIkiO Kf387ZJDj1FoJ+DrzdqlWjQhzaGpma7QrrrRMAChq8+Jwt8uAPuqtmOxeIJT+x+3Fp7u 9yIA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.241.3 with SMTP id we3mr7305029obc.82.1450709715981; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 06:55:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.110.40 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 06:55:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7B1E2B3A05FF2341B03CE0320754230728E3A1283B@HE101454.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
References: <20151217112025.22801.65457.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <BY2PR03MB4429A8A55EB13BCF8227BEBF5E00@BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <5672B939.4020507@cs.tcd.ie> <BY2PR03MB442F5A1BDF03E7997843CF0F5E00@BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <5672BD41.3000804@cs.tcd.ie> <2A23B5AE-6E82-4A44-A0D8-3D7970C57438@ve7jtb.com> <B8649513-3B05-417F-B551-46FFDA5689C2@ve7jtb.com> <CAHbuEH4yrcqmJ0uWvv2iZXZjdKGSOzcAH34i6uU2QpSyuUq=ug@mail.gmail.com> <45F8D078-A72B-4F6D-87EB-880EF867F4F2@cisco.com> <7B1E2B3A05FF2341B03CE0320754230728E3A1283B@HE101454.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:55:15 +0900
Message-ID: <CABzCy2C0sfJJdsv9mVvVJYWYfujTMJednE_8L7p3NcHo9-bOCg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com>
To: Axel Nennker <Axel.Nennker@telekom.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3608c4b1e40052769add7
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/U38tW0Be7JqdcNRqX4VA3yf-pIo>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 08:25:04 -0800
Cc: jose-chairs@ietf.org, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options@ietf.org, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>, Matthew Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <jose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jose/>
List-Post: <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:55:21 -0000

I also think it is better to make the b64 parameter critical. Being
deterministic makes the life of programmers simpler. It also decreases the
vulnerability surface. So +1 to James's text.

2015-12-21 22:26 GMT+09:00 <Axel.Nennker@telekom.de>de>:

> I think that the larger a payload is the higher is the risk of a bad
> verify and that few extra bytes don't matter then.
> And I follow Vladimir's argument to try to keep the security concideration
> section simpler.
>
> So +1 to James proposed text.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jose [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Matt Miller
> (mamille2)
> Sent: Donnerstag, 17. Dezember 2015 18:19
> To: Kathleen Moriarty; jose@ietf.org
> Cc: jose-chairs@ietf.org; ietf@augustcellars.com; Michael Jones; The
> IESG; John Bradley; Stephen Farrell;
> draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [jose] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
> I prefer James' proposed text.  I believe this draft came about primarily
> because there are use cases where the content to sign is large enough that
> the burden of base64url encoding is too great.  By that measure, I'm not
> sure how worthwhile size-of-header arguments are, as content so large that
> base64url might be prohibitive would dwarf the concerns around header
> size.  I think the risk of bad verifies outweighs the reduced-headher-size
> benefits.
>
>
> --
> - m&m
>
> Matt Miller
> Cisco Systems, Inc.
>
> > On Dec 17, 2015, at 08:39, Kathleen Moriarty <
> kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 9:32 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
> >> Sorry I just recounted, it is a extra 20 bytes per message with the
> encoded header and not 6.
> >>
> >> That is a bit more but probably not worth dying over.   I still prefer
> the smaller option.
> >
> > If we could get to a consensus on this and which text is preferred,
> > that would be helpful.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Kathleen
> >
> >
> >>
> >> John B.
> >>
> >>> On Dec 17, 2015, at 3:04 PM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I prefer making crit only required if the producer is not certain that
> all potential recipients understand/the extension.
> >>>
> >>> However it would not be the end of the world for me from a size
> perspective if crit was always required.  Trading 6 octets for saving 1/4
> of the body size is not a bad trade off.
> >>>
> >>> The issue for me is more always requiring something to be sent that is
> known to not be used.
> >>>
> >>> So I am on the not forcing crit side but could live with the consensus
> if it goes the other way.
> >>>
> >>> John B.
> >>>
> >>>> On Dec 17, 2015, at 2:48 PM, Stephen Farrell <
> stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Great. For completeness, the alternative proposed by James Manger
> >>>> (which I'd also prefer) was:
> >>>>
> >>>> The "crit" Header Parameter MUST be included with "b64" in its set
> >>>> of values to ensure the JWS is rejected (instead of being
> >>>> misinterpreted) by implementations that do not understand this
> >>>> specification.
> >>>>
> >>>> My discuss then is asking if, after all this discussion, the WG
> >>>> prefer the above or that below. I'll take the WG chairs word on
> >>>> what they conclude as the outcome.
> >>>>
> >>>> S.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 17/12/15 13:44, Mike Jones wrote:
> >>>>> Sure, I'm obviously fine asking the working group what they think of
> the new text.  Working group - this new text at
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-08#section-6
> is:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 6.  Using "crit" with "b64"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If a JWS using "b64" with a value of "false" might be processed by
> >>>>> implementations not implementing this extension, then the "crit"
> >>>>> Header Parameter MUST be included with "b64" in its set of values
> >>>>> to cause such implementations to reject the JWS.  Conversely, if
> >>>>> used in environments in which all participants implement this
> >>>>> extension, then "crit" need not be included, since its inclusion
> >>>>> would have no effect, other than increasing the JWS size and
> processing costs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>                           Thanks all,
> >>>>>                           -- Mike
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie]
> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 2:32 PM
> >>>>>> To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>om>; The IESG
> >>>>>> <iesg@ietf.org>
> >>>>>> Cc: ietf@augustcellars.com; jose-chairs@ietf.org;
> >>>>>> draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing- input-options@ietf.org;
> >>>>>> jose@ietf.org
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on
> >>>>>> draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-
> >>>>>> options-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hiya,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 17/12/15 13:20, Mike Jones wrote:
> >>>>>>> Thanks for your review, Stephen.  Replies inline below...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell
> >>>>>>>> [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie] Sent: Thursday, December 17,
> >>>>>>>> 2015 12:20 PM To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> Cc:
> >>>>>>>> draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options@ietf.org; Mike Jones
> >>>>>>>> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>om>; Jim Schaad
> >>>>>>>> <ietf@augustcellars.com>om>; jose-chairs@ietf.org;
> ietf@augustcellars.com; jose@ietf.org Subject:
> >>>>>>>> Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-
> >>>>>>>> options-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> >>>>>>>> draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-08: Discuss
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply
> >>>>>>>> to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel
> >>>>>>>> free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please refer to
> >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for
> >>>>>>>> more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
> >>>>>>>> here:
> >>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-in
> >>>>>>>> put-op
> >>>>>>>> tions/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> -----
> >>>>>>>> DISCUSS:
> >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> ------
> >>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> The "crit" point raised in the gen-art review and maybe elsewhere
> >>>>>> is I think
> >>>>>>>> correct but I don't think section 6 of -08 is a good resolution
> >>>>>>>> of this topic. However, I'll clear if this is the WG consensus
> >>>>>>>> but it's hard to know that's the case for text just added
> >>>>>>>> yesterday. To resolve this discuss we just need to see what the
> >>>>>>>> WG list says about the new text.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jim's shepherd write-up at
> >>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-inp
> >>>>>>> ut-opt ions/shepherdwriteup/ records the working group's desire
> >>>>>>> to not require the use of "crit"
> >>>>>>> when it isn't needed.  He wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "(6)  The fact that there are two different versions of encoding
> >>>>>>> that produce the same text string for signing is worrisome to
> >>>>>>> me.  The WG had the ability to address this when producing the
> >>>>>>> JWS specification and decided not to do so that time.  In this
> >>>>>>> document, the desire to allow for things to be smaller has lead
> >>>>>>> to the fact that the b64 and crit headers can be omitted as
> >>>>>>> being implicit.  This was the desire of the WG, but I personally
> feel that it is the wrong decision."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fair enough, so the chair/shepherd, gen-art reviewer and seems
> >>>>>> like a few IESG members all find the current position
> >>>>>> unconvincing as does the one implementer who posted to the WG list
> since the new text was added.
> >>>>>> Wouldn't you agree there's enough there to justify asking the WG
> >>>>>> once more what they think about that 13 byte overhead to prevent
> >>>>>> interop and maybe even security problems?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> ------
> >>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> COMMENT:
> >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> ------
> >>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> - abstract: the description of the update to 7519 is odd. It
> >>>>>> seems to be saying
> >>>>>>>> "Here we define a thing. This specification updates 7519 to say
> >>>>>>>> you must not use this thing." but prohibiting is an odd verb to
> >>>>>>>> use there. (Since it wasn't previously there to be allowed or
> >>>>>>>> not.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Would you like this text better?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "This specification updates RFC 7519 by stating that JSON Web
> >>>>>>> Tokens
> >>>>>>> (JWTs) MUST NOT use the unencoded payload option defined by this
> >>>>>>> specification."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Better yep. Thanks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Or do you think this spec doesn't need to have the "Updates 7519"
> >>>>>>> clause at all?  People seemed split on whether this was needed or
> not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Happens all the time. Personally I mostly don't care about
> >>>>>> updates which is the case this time too:-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - section 6: "It is intended that application profiles specify
> >>>>>>>> up front whether" "intended" is very wishy washy and "up front"
> >>>>>>>> makes no sense at all.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How about this wording change? "It is intended that application
> >>>>>>> profiles specify up front whether" -> "Application profiles
> >>>>>>> should specify whether"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Also better,
> >>>>>> Ta,
> >>>>>> S.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks again, -- Mike
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> jose mailing list
> >>>>> jose@ietf.org
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> jose mailing list
> >>>> jose@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Kathleen
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>



-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en