IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-16: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 22 August 2019 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A63C5120091; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 16:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 26S3Tk1m1BUD; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 16:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 86D88120089; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 16:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x7MN2k2d019642 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:02:48 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1566514971; bh=6hv0eyQJHWDEMm/43NQRiurmVK4/bBMjbLbzD3aeGvA=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=bKvCMnxXiYGHoB10a8ezFQDnOdenewrRwTBt1Qkg88tHBqCG7AlP1CZyeq5XqxhY/ mUrGgh4rgcSkpGUW/F2hZPFhr+lXirzKtGC4pXIzJjZG/WJAPyCYDTzxFVtj24yEz+ EJdtdhcpQRJ4X7vaP3Zr0WfaXx1AfDOwtLlJF42k=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-oauth-mtls@ietf.org, oauth <oauth@ietf.org>, oauth-chairs@ietf.org
References: <156626655953.5157.11629807813580977810.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+k3eCQ5yOpqnbB+5eNmkOuLc+X=7MQvhx0VvXLAnXRE-k=sMg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+k3eCRz5J2dRbDipGeYaWnbqksVbP0CygugKn75+sRMWAg8AQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <f848063d-e3f1-3a6a-d273-94906a7fcb03@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:02:41 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+k3eCRz5J2dRbDipGeYaWnbqksVbP0CygugKn75+sRMWAg8AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/KUb3G-Rr_7KsAWVCNsvwS9AgFSI>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-16: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 23:02:55 -0000

On 8/22/19 5:48 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
> Regarding the comment on tls_client_auth_san_ip, some other reviewers 
> have suggested using the using the IPv6 Address Text Representation 
> described in RFC 5952 rather than the one from in RFC 4291. Which I 
> think makes sense to do. Maybe also with a note that the comparison of 
> the addresses should done using binary as suggested in 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952#section-8
>
> What do you think?


That sounds like a fine approach. Thanks for digging that reference up. :)

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email