Re: [secdir] MTI ... Re: Security review of draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-12

Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Wed, 01 April 2015 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
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 E1CAB1A0039; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 mR3S5UbFOto7; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (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 0871F1A002D; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.131.146] ([80.92.114.249]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MaIPo-1YspbI0xgm-00JuPa; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 19:05:48 +0200
Message-ID: <551C2568.3050301@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 19:05:44 +0200
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU>
References: <CABrd9STmvLWy_Bz7e+pN_0vANxajtD+fMzVM+trwn6+k50Mifw@mail.gmail.com> <551C0005.2000309@gmx.net> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1504011209550.22210@multics.mit.edu> <551C1970.4050600@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <551C1970.4050600@cs.tcd.ie>
OpenPGP: id=4D776BC9
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cI4XwhMkwI0pVdHhoCu0IwEIONfxV7jOG"
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:2vMA18tEbpNlabWWXxhmSdlH7AdNJW+1vz5kn0zXkAnFgTT0nyj gwztADCqazs7dljNCatrqO/uYoujPIKW9JSB/7FwiGUCEB7Zd8XdlkceSVlIwVJUH3dVFN3 fa2xYqL+GCRUqELsfazdOJ8q94L3ufFMyITek4nRpcgqvCktmx0oF05mdwBQjdrHDXs0jgS 3VfMUDFie8Mkavvjpyirw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/PQv0YY0dCHcyxvMudMr_i34IJHQ>
Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management.all@tools.ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] MTI ... Re: Security review of draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-12
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, 01 Apr 2015 17:06:03 -0000

Ben, Stephen,

I believe that this would be a good idea although it does not really
solve the underlying problem. Why? If we put a reference to the UTA BCP
in there then we end up in the need to update our documents in the not
too distance future to point to a new UTA BCP that talks about TLS 1.3.

Ciao
Hannes


On 04/01/2015 06:14 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01/04/15 17:11, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Apr 2015, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>
>>> I personally would like to replace these types of recommendations with
>>> references to a page on the IETF website that talks about the most
>>> recent TLS & ciphersuite recommendations. I am aware that this might
>>> create problems with claiming interoperability with a specific RFC...
>>
>> Why not a BCP document for TLS usage?  It seems to be a charter item for
>> the uta WG already...
> 
> Well, initially OAuth wanted some specifics that matched the
> deployments then seen, but yeah, I think the world may have
> moved on sufficiently that a simple reference to the UTA BCP
> (which is in the RFC editor queue) [1] might be fine. I'd
> say it's defo worth asking the wg if they'd have a problem
> with that now.
> 
> S.
> 
> [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/queue2.html#draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp
> 
> 
>>
>> -Ben
>>