Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applications handle the LockBox in client in <plasma:GetCMSToken> elements
"Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> Wed, 21 November 2012 06:40 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Original-To: plasma@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: plasma@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9AC721F884A for <plasma@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:40:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CVRY5MyUeuOQ for <plasma@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:40:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.pacifier.net (smtp2.pacifier.net [64.255.237.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E112821F8849 for <plasma@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:40:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Philemon (50-39-217-203.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net [50.39.217.203]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp2.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C28CF2CA1E; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:40:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Trevor Freeman' <trevorf@exchange.microsoft.com>, 'Ed Simon' <Ed.Simon@titus.com>, plasma@ietf.org
References: <DCD8C7A5A8B3E844AA2E2CBE327CDC92013D21D4@E10MB3.tituscorp.local> <002601cdc6a0$fa38dcf0$eeaa96d0$@augustcellars.com> <3020AC5E95452D43B5D8D0FB02F881D30A6DA4@DF-M14-10.exchange.corp.microsoft.com> <005d01cdc6d5$04f967c0$0eec3740$@augustcellars.com> <3020AC5E95452D43B5D8D0FB02F881D30A77B8@DF-M14-10.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <3020AC5E95452D43B5D8D0FB02F881D30A77B8@DF-M14-10.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:39:48 -0800
Message-ID: <002d01cdc7b3$03c8b110$0b5a1330$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQEeaXGaF3ugIn/POqXt8r+ivF6IKQHOr5HmAl5A6eMCpuxtugGlZd0MmQ7IWGA=
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applications handle the LockBox in client in <plasma:GetCMSToken> elements
X-BeenThere: plasma@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The PoLicy Augmented S/Mime \(plasma\) bof discussion list." <plasma.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/plasma>, <mailto:plasma-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/plasma>
List-Post: <mailto:plasma@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:plasma-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma>, <mailto:plasma-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 06:40:04 -0000
What does it mean to have a recipient list if you are not looking at Email? If one has a recipient list, and that recipient list is updated during processing (for example mail list expansion) does that change the original policy set by the sender? I should have called the structure <LockBoxes> rather than <Recipients> to prevent the confusion. However, I can see that this could be an input that is of interest to the policy. However doing so means that we have to figure out what it means in a number of different cases that I am currently not ready to think about Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Trevor Freeman [mailto:trevorf@exchange.microsoft.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 2:46 PM > To: Jim Schaad; 'Ed Simon'; plasma@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [plasma] Clarification of how client applications handle the > LockBox in client in <plasma:GetCMSToken> elements > > Hi Jim, > > The list of recipients for a message is a single list per message. There are no > policy dependent recipient lists. The need for the list is policy dependent but > One or more policies may want that data as input to the policy. It seems > pointless duplication to include the list of recipients as part of the policy as > you have to repeat the same data to each policy. > > We have a per-message recipient list structure defined. If the lock box > element is optional, we can use the same structure for both #1 and #2 below > i.e. if I just want a recipient list with no lock boxes or if I want a recipient list > with lock boxes. > > Trevor > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Schaad [mailto:ietf@augustcellars.com] > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 8:11 PM > To: Trevor Freeman; 'Ed Simon'; plasma@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [plasma] Clarification of how client applications handle the > LockBox in client in <plasma:GetCMSToken> elements > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Trevor Freeman [mailto:trevorf@exchange.microsoft.com] > > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 2:18 PM > > To: Jim Schaad; 'Ed Simon'; plasma@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [plasma] Clarification of how client applications handle > > the LockBox in client in <plasma:GetCMSToken> elements > > > > Hi Jim, > > > > Let me restate things to see if I understood you correctly. > > > > The list of recipient is one per message not one per policy. While one > > or > more > > policies may require the list be supplied; only one list would be > > included > in > > the GetCMSToken request via the recipient structure. > > > > < Recipient> > > <Subject>lisa@simpsons.com</Subject> > > </Recipient> > > < Recipient> > > <Subject>bart@simpsons.com</Subject> > > </Recipient> > > No that is not correct. > > There are three distinct ways that a list of recipients may be supplied to the > system. These each have different outcomes. > > 1. A recipient may be supplied with a lock box created by the sender. This > supports a mode where the Plasma server does not know the CEK. This is > done through the <Recipient/> element. (As you did below here) > > 2. A recipient list may be supplied as part of a policy. This allows for > a policy to have a set of names to evaluate as part of the policy. This will > (normally) be combined with giving a CEK to the server and allowing it to > determine who gets the CEK back. > > 3. A recipient lists specific to email may be provided as part of the input data. > This behavior (perhaps not currently in the document) is provided for the > purpose of doing pre-authorization of gateways and is specific to email. > > > Currently the above is better expressed as > > Policy=basic Policy > BasicPolicy Recipient List is "lisa@simpsons.com bart@simpsons.com" > > Jim > > > > > Policies may also require that lock boxes be generated for receipts > > rather than supply the CEK to the Plasma server. In that instance, the > > list of > receipts > > together with the associated lock box would be included in the > > GetCMSToken request. > > > > < Recipient> > > <Subject>lisa@simpsons.com</Subject> > > <LockBox>123456789</LockBox> > > </Recipient> > > < Recipient> > > <Subject>bart@simpsons.com</Subject> > > <LockBox>abcdef</LockBox> > > </Recipient> > > > > Trevor > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: plasma-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:plasma-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Jim Schaad > > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 1:58 PM > > To: 'Ed Simon'; plasma@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applications handle > > the LockBox in client in <plasma:GetCMSToken> elements > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: plasma-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:plasma-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > Behalf Of Ed Simon > > > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:07 PM > > > To: plasma@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applications > > > handle the LockBox in client in <plasma:GetCMSToken> elements > > > > > > Based on discussions with others on this mailing list, and > > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/plasma/current/msg00118.html > > > > > > ...I have drawn up the following three scenarios regarding the > > construction of > > > the <GetCMSToken> element sent to the PLASMA Server by the Sending > > > Agent, and the construction of the LockBox by the PLASMA Server. > > > > > > Does what I've described in these scenarios, particularly Scenario B > > > in > > which > > > the Sending Agent leaves it to the PLASMA Server to construct a > > > LockBox > > for > > > a named recipient, sound reasonable? Scenario B follows from the text > > > "Additionally the Plasma server could return the standard > > > recipient info structures to be added to the message for recipients > > > if it can pre-authorize them to have access the message and knows the > > > appropriate keying material." > > > in the PLASMA Service CMS Processing v2 document. > > > > This text is intended to deal with the case of creating lockboxes for > entities > > such as virus checking gateways in a mail system. The lockboxes that > > are being returned with here are placed parallel to the Plasma Lockbox > > in the CMS Enveloped data object and are not embedded into the lockbox > > created by the Plasma server. > > > > > > > > Here are the scenarios: > > > > > > Scenario A: The Sending Agent does NOT share the CEK with the PLASMA > > > server and specifies a limited set of recipients who can decrypt the > > message > > > (for example, due to section 7.2.2 of PLASMA Service Trust > > > processing > v3). > > > > > > Sending Agent: In the <GetCMSToken> element of the PLASMA Request, > > the > > > sender will construct a <Recipient> list specifying, for each > > recipient, both > > > the <Subject> element (to identify the recipient), and the <LockBox> > > > element to contain the encrypted CEK for that recipient (encrypted > > > so only that recipient can decrypt it). There will be no <CEK> element. > > > > > > PLASMA Server: Will construct an ASN.1 PLASMA LockBox (as described > > > in PLASMA Service CMS Processing v2). The LockBox constructed by the > > > PLASMA Server will comprise, in the namedRecipients, the LockBox-es > > > provided by the Sending Agent. There will be no defaultRecipients > > structure. > > > Note that in this scenario, the PLASMA Server will not be able, > > > barring > > further > > > communication with the Sending Agent, be able to supplement the list > > > of recipients. > > > > This looks correct > > > > > > > > Scenario B: The sender shares the CEK with the PLASMA server and > > > specifies a limited set of recipients who can decrypt the message > > > (for example, > > again, > > > due to section 7.2.2 of PLASMA Trust processing). For each recipient > > > specified, there may or may not be a LockBox specified by the > > > Sending Agent. > > > > > > Sending Agent: In the <GetCMSToken> element of the PLASMA Request, > > the > > > sender will construct a <Recipient> list specifying, for each > > recipient, both > > > the <Subject> element (to identify the recipient), and, optionally, > > > the <LockBox> element to contain the encrypted CEK for that > > > recipient (encrypted so only that recipient can decrypt it). The > > > Sending Agent will > > also > > > construct a <CEK> element to contain the CEK. > > > > > > PLASMA Server: Where a LockBox for a recipient was specified by the > > > Sending Agent, it will be treated as in Scenario A; otherwise, the > > > PLASMA Server will create a LockBox for that recipient to populate > > > the namedRecipients structure. It will also create a > > > defaultRecipients > > structure > > > using the CEK provided by the Sending Agent. Note that in this > > > scenario, > > the > > > PLASMA Server will be able to, independently of the Sending Agent, > > > be able to supplement the list of recipients. > > > > > > Note that for Scenario B, the schema definition for the <LockBox> > > > element will need to have the attribute minOccurs=0. > > > > This is not currently an envisioned scenario in terms of the Plasma > > server creating the lock boxes at send time. Currently if there is a > > list of > recipients > > that the sender does not create lockboxes for, it is envisioned that > > this > would > > be handled as part of the policy set on the message. The Plasma > > server would then deal with potentially creating a lock box (as oppose > > to > returning a > > bare key) when the recipient tries to get the key from the server. > > > > > > > > Scenario C: The Sending Agent shares the CEK with the PLASMA server > > > and does NOT specify any recipients. > > > > > > Sending Agent: The Sending Agent will also construct a <CEK> element > > > to contain the CEK; no <Recipient> element will be created. > > > > > > PLASMA Server: The PLASMA Server will also create a > > > defaultRecipients structure using the CEK provided by the Sending > > > Agent; it may or may not create a namedRecipients structure > > > (populated independently of the Sending Agent). As in Scenario B, > > > the PLASMA Server will be able to, independently of the Sending > > > Agent, be able to supplement the list of recipients. > > > > This is what I would expect to see. > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > plasma mailing list > > > plasma@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma > > > > _______________________________________________ > > plasma mailing list > > plasma@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma
- [plasma] Clarification of how client applications… Ed Simon
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Jim Schaad
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Ed Simon
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Ed Simon
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Jim Schaad
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Trevor Freeman
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Jim Schaad
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Trevor Freeman
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Jim Schaad
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Ed Simon
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Ed Simon
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Jim Schaad
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Ed Simon
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Ed Simon
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Jim Schaad
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Ed Simon
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Trevor Freeman
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Jim Schaad
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Jim Schaad
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Trevor Freeman
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Trevor Freeman