Re: [Rats] clarity on JWT vs YANG-serialization: base64 vs base64url

Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de> Mon, 11 November 2019 10:11 UTC

Return-Path: <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
X-Original-To: rats@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rats@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C94B12082E for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 02:11:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 UyGsVsCe3wBC for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 02:11:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de (mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de [141.12.72.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3F27120059 for <rats@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 02:11:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sit.fraunhofer.de (mail.sit.fraunhofer.de [141.12.84.171]) by mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-10) with ESMTPS id xABABNOx016999 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:11:24 +0100
Received: from [134.102.155.87] (134.102.155.87) by mail.sit.fraunhofer.de (141.12.84.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.468.0; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:11:18 +0100
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, <rats@ietf.org>
References: <8B173958-FC2A-4D1D-A81C-F324AB632CD7@cisco.com> <147F9159-6055-4E55-ABDC-43DFE3498BF1@island-resort.com> <ce5f8206-74dc-36bb-0093-a93045d5c67f@sit.fraunhofer.de> <0A7E3A4F-8534-4E98-BCB7-1454E07699F4@island-resort.com> <C3AE2645-49C8-4313-BCED-02FEB576B614@cisco.com> <78de3311-e3d1-675a-f373-dec567d31dc6@sandelman.ca>
From: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Message-ID: <d490a8ec-fb4e-bdca-b9c9-8730ae71a488@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:11:18 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <78de3311-e3d1-675a-f373-dec567d31dc6@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [134.102.155.87]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/lYjrutiFvgZ3ubFxIgn2hYLBpAM>
Subject: Re: [Rats] clarity on JWT vs YANG-serialization: base64 vs base64url
X-BeenThere: rats@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Remote Attestation Procedures <rats.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rats>, <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rats/>
List-Post: <mailto:rats@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats>, <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:11:30 -0000

Hi Michael,

you are bringing up an issue that might look tiny, but I think you are 
right when you say: "it will catch at least one implementer".

And there is no easy fix for his, it seems? JWT is set, and YANG modeled 
data, such as RFC 7951, is also set. I am not sure that there is a thing 
such as "tolerant decoders" in practice, I am afraid.

In summary, as a last resort I'd agree with you that we need to "hit 
people over the head with this", extensively.

Viele Grüße,

Henk

On 11.11.19 01:21, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> When it comes to JWT encapsulation and YANG serialized JSON there are
> some potential conflicts that I want to bring up.  This is worth a 5
> minute discussion at a future meeting (perhaps premature for IETF106).
> 
> I've posted about this to other lists in the past two weeks, but I don't
> have the references, and I don't have enough Internet to look them up
> from here.
> 
> The specific conflict is that JWT, coming from the web space, uses
> base64URL encoding for binary objects (signatures..., etc.) while YANG,
> uses base64 encoding for binary objects.  This is a documentation
> annoyance, but it will catch at least one implementer.
> 
> Tolerant decoders might accept both (but neither Python or Ruby base64
> decoders are tolerant), but I don't think we can in general, demand that
> either is acceptable, so we have to say which to use each time.
> 
> We will just have to be clear going forward, and hit people over the
> head with this.  I can easily see YANG described data (signatures on
> Evidence) from a TPM device being base64 encoded, and then placed into a
> JWT container which is base64URL signed (for a Claim).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> RATS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>