Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-httpauth-basicauth-update-06

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 18 February 2015 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA4E1A1B60; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:45:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 VxZGqQU5EYhq; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E8081A1B83; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.175] ([93.217.116.45]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M7CRe-1XbS2N357e-00x7Cc; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 23:45:49 +0100
Message-ID: <54E5161A.5050606@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 23:45:46 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <874mqjd49v.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <54E50FC3.9080708@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <54E50FC3.9080708@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:94YCzVSQOzpgcGdlCkI92Z91E8zK8C+JNULuPlPFTl38zja28RW c9k43gk0ZCmuAIQQEL83eVHg6ALW7EiLzJN/Vsr9gFDFSzTBD5rqhyGrD/D1YjViYcs2CEM UKimPV3bAJorjb6BL//Lzi7TLrYhNDe7dn9k+Gm0JrvzWOoGJY0p2SuPXTCDYVpnnSsU0R0 q0Q3NkJqhkfTbrc0gL6KQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/LXN9L4bxeGV3L8Bv-euWSLv3Yic>
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-httpauth-basicauth-update-06
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 22:45:55 -0000

On 2015-02-18 23:18, Julian Reschke wrote:
> ...
>> Interaction with proxies?
>> -------------------------
>>
>> There is only a passing mention of Proxy-Authenticate: and
>> Proxy-Authorization: headers, so one assumes that both mechanisms should
>> support this new auth-param.  It's not clear to me whether there are any
>> additional security or privacy implications when this is addressed to
>> proxies compared to origin servers.
>
> I'm not aware of any.
>
>> Section 2.2 ("reusing credentials") talks about the URI path (presumably
>> for "WWW-Authenticate", but then mixes "Proxy-Authenticate" into the
>> middle of that commentary.  It looks to me like "Proxy-Authenticate" is
>> not intended to be scoped by the URI path (there is no mention of "in
>> that space" in the sentence about Proxy-Authenticate in Section 2.2),
>> but this is kind of ambiguous.  Clarification would be good.
>
> To be frank, I don't know. My best guess is that it works exactly the
> same, so I'll add "in that space" there as well.
> ...

I'll take that back. The current draft is in sync with what RFC 2617 
said. I'd rather not change that without understanding the implications.

>> User IDs with Colons
>> --------------------
>>
>> The draft says "a user-id containing a colon character is invalid" --
>> why not say that "the user-id MUST NOT contain a colon character", as it
>> already does for control characters?
>
> I don't think it really matters how we say it (both have exactly the
> same normative power), but I agree it would be better for consistency.

I changed my mind when I replied to Pete Resnick's mail: I really don't 
see the point of declaring something a "MUST NOT" when most UAs actually 
do it.

>> Nits
>> ====
>>
>>   * in B.3, "Authentication on these sites will stop to work" should be
>>     "Authentication on these sites will stop working"
>
> Ok.

So far, I have 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpauth/trac/changeset/120> and 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpauth/trac/changeset/121>.

Best regards, Julian