[saag] Request for review and consensus -- draft-hartman-webauth-phishing

Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org> Thu, 04 September 2008 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <saag-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: saag-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-saag-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6703A6943; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 08:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: saag@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC423A6973; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.187, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hkm6+l9Qehn7; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org (laweleka.osafoundation.org [204.152.186.98]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 394913A6A90; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D5314220E; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org
Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PRmrd+r3USrU; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.1.121] (unknown [157.22.41.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16CC914220C; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <47490048-25ED-403E-96B9-0D385F764292@osafoundation.org>
From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, secdir@mit.edu, saag@ietf.org, Apps Discuss <discuss@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v928.1)
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:41:39 -0700
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.928.1)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 08:16:51 -0700
Cc: ietf-http-auth@osafoundation.org
Subject: [saag] Request for review and consensus -- draft-hartman-webauth-phishing
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/saag>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: saag-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: saag-bounces@ietf.org

You may have seen this draft a year ago; Sam is back working on it and  
produced version -09 last month.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-09

If you've reviewed it before, please take a look at the changes.  If  
you'd like to review it, please do.  I'm the shepherd for this draft,  
so comments can be sent to me, to Sam as author, to ietf-http-auth@osafoundation.org 
, or to the IETF general list as appropriate.

In addition to getting general input, I'd like to get a sense of  
whether we have consensus on a couple things.

a).  The statement including "IETF recommends", from section 1.1 of  
the draft:

    "In publishing this memo, the IETF recommends making available
    authentication mechanisms that meet the requirements outlined in
    Section 4 in HTTP user agents including web browsers.  It is hoped
    that these mechanisms will prove a useful step in fighting phishing.
    However this memo does not restrict work either in the IETF or any
    other organization.  In particular, new authentication efforts are
    not bound to meet the requirements posed in this memo unless the
    charter for those efforts chooses to make these binding  
requirements.
    Less formally, the IETF presents this memo as an option to pursue
    while acknowledging that there may be other promising paths both now
    and in the future."

b) Whether the document should require mutual authentication (section  
4.4).

Thanks,
Lisa D.
_______________________________________________
saag mailing list
saag@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag