Re: [OAUTH-WG] client certs and TLS Terminating Reverse Proxies (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-08.txt)

[Brian Campbell <[e-mail]>]

I don't think there's anything beyond defining something to carry the
client certificate information (including the format and encoding). And it
could well be a new RFC7239 parameter. Or it might just be a new HTTP
header on its own.

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 9:05 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Thanks Brian,
>
> I guess my question is: given RFC7239 and the fact that it is
> straightforward to secure the channel between the terminating reverse proxy
> and the backend service in a cluster, is there anything, from a standard
> perspective, that we need to do beyond defining a new parameter to carry
> the client certificate information?
> You seem suggest that the answer is yes. If so, can you please elaborate
> on why is that?
>
> Regards,
>  Rifaat
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 8:42 AM Brian Campbell <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 3:55 PM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 3:47 PM Brian Campbell <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did look at RFC7239 when doing that and it could have been made to
>>>> work but felt the fit wasn't quite right and would have been more
>>>> cumbersome to use than not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Can you elaborate on this?
>>> These days, with the zero trust model in mind, there are orchestration
>>> tools, e.g. Istio, that easily allows you to establish an MTLS channel
>>> between the reverse proxy/load balancer/API GW and the backend servers.
>>> Why is that not sufficient?
>>> Which part is cumbersome?
>>>
>>
>> What I meant was only that in the course of writing
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tokbind-ttrp-09, which aims to
>> define HTTP header fields that enable a TLS terminating reverse proxy to
>> convey information to a backend server about the validated Token Binding
>> Message received from a client, it seemed more straightforward and
>> sufficient for the use-case to use new HTTP headers to carry the
>> information rather than to use new fields in the Forwarded header framework
>> from RFC7239.
>>
>>
>> *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.*
>
>

-- 
_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._