Re: [secdir] sector review of draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05

"Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> Thu, 11 June 2015 22:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
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 AEFE11B33BE; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 4LUzyl0Oo34S; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp3.pacifier.net (smtp3.pacifier.net [64.255.237.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A40D31B33A7; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hebrews (unknown [50.109.226.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp3.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B8F938FC8; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: "'Mike Jones'" <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, "'Adam W. Montville'" <adam.w.montville@gmail.com>, "'The IESG'" <iesg@ietf.org>, <secdir@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint.all@ietf.org>
References: <A1BD2DB0-A7D9-4635-8A3B-074303AF2E55@gmail.com> <BY2PR03MB442BD780448D808BA10D657F5BC0@BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR03MB442BD780448D808BA10D657F5BC0@BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:35:40 -0700
Message-ID: <003d01d0a496$f2ee7d70$d8cb7850$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQH/CRWIcZSXbJbM2kM+qRSrEj4cCAIc57yonTo0IvA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/P0WKJIcckKwtvIL4EDFD4Op-98o>
Cc: jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] sector review of draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05
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: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 22:35:36 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:25 PM
> To: Adam W. Montville; The IESG; secdir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-jose-jwk-
> thumbprint.all@ietf.org
> Cc: jose@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: sector review of draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05
> 
> Hi Adam,
> 
> Thanks for the secdir review.
> 
> > From: Adam W. Montville [mailto:adam.w.montville@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 8:46 AM
> > To: The IESG; secdir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint.all@ietf.org
> > Subject: sector review of draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05
> 
> > Hi,
> 
> > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
> comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
> Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any
> other last call comments.
> >
> > I believe the document is ready with (potential) issues.  The “with issues” might
> be due to ignorance on my part.  The draft does a very good job of explaining
> the canonical form of a JSON Web Key that can be used for establishing a
> thumbprint under varying circumstances, complete with what I found to be
> helpful examples.
> >
> > The primary issue I have is that it’s unclear how relying parties are going to
> know which hash algorithm has been used.  The examples use SHA-256, but I’m
> not seeing where SHA-256 might be specified as a MUST or even a SHOULD.
> Moreover, the example output ultimately shows only the Base-64 encoding of
> the resulting hash, which says nothing about the algorithm used to identify a
> key.
> 
> Earlier drafts had included fields whose names were intended to communicate
> the information about the hash function used - see the "jkt" field definitions in
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-01#section-4 - but
> several working group reviewers suggested that these fields were unnecessary
> and that the typical usage would be as "kid" (key ID) field values.  With that
> removal, it falls onto the application to specify the hash algorithm for its
> particular usage.
> 
> This isn't as bad as you might think, however, because typically the consumer of
> the "kid" doesn't need to know the algorithm because it won't be reproducing
> the computation.  It just relies on the fact that a unique key ID value was
> generated for the key and compares "kid" values as opaque strings to find the
> appropriate key.  In this usage, the producer of the key is the only party that
> needs to know the hash algorithm that it is using.  I hope this helps.
> 
> > Additionally, in Section 4, “JSON and Unicode Considerations” some “should”s
> are used, but I’m not reading them as SHOULDs.  Should they be SHOULDs?  For
> example, the start of the third paragraph in that section: “if new JWK members
> are defined that use non-ASCII member names, their definitions should specify
> the exact Unicode code point sequences used to represent them.”  It’s not clear
> to me whether this is a strong statement or just a recommendation - it seems
> that this draft could help the future by making stronger statements to encourage
> future interoperability.
> 
> For the other JOSE specifications, our chair Jim Schaad took the position that
> RFC 2119 keywords should be reserved for testable protocol behaviors and that
> other uses of the English word "should" should not use "SHOULD".  The authors
> followed that convention in this document.  I do understand that other authors
> and working groups have taken different positions in this regard.  If there are
> particular uses that you still feel should be changed to use RFC 2119 keywords,
> please call them out.

If we really wanted to make sure that the recommendation was followed, then it would make sense to adjust the IANA reviewers instructions for the registry.  Putting a SHOULD or a MUST in this document would not have any effect since it does not define a protocol and might not be seen by anybody defining a new header field.

Jim

> 
> > Kind regards,
> > Adam
> 
> 				Thanks again!
> 				-- Mike