Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpauth-hoba-08.txt

Kathleen Moriarty <> Tue, 30 December 2014 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FABA1A1BB5; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:46:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gj3L8KdYPW1t; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:46:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 656FA1A8777; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:46:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z11so12566696lbi.24; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:45:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ATvBwkJZpSw19PU/5uvlOYlKSqfLnLMIcOyweCrsEx8=; b=mW1z4p9bp9mH389bYx9KMfDeJ6n3YOc+xH7yBv1D7684Gb/HS52tjdX9tMwUcDAFlA xJeUgyfM+f5vd6abrEid1d6CICVFZzD3+Eu75Qskd2qkfzMqVUt0eZsRN27P3MDUI98U xjMhqpFrbxbBO6W96puCPcTCbSMXoiki1P35JEGQSUhDvcybLlWMbFkNEaA8g7gCV6cc x6MCPeqvP0OSrqdRyo+YzzVBNEddKlHDWF65RrQd2x+5UIBYmDpFJySdxc1znBtoTwHA 4kFuIBshlBU61QJOouNsUoqUfdynUN+ArFqGgDmpJSDMqQTnWaQ8cpDEAz9CpjNIaqIY +NXA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id ms10mr26285122lbb.33.1419975959590; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:45:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:45:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 16:45:59 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <>
To: Barry Leiba <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc:, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpauth-hoba-08.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 21:46:06 -0000

Hi Stephen,

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Barry Leiba <> wrote:
> On just a couple of points...
>>> Page 6/7/13, Figure 1/2/3: I'm not sure that something that is
>>> entirely textural is best called a "Figure". But in any case, since
>>> the text is, or at least has, lines that are flush left, it looks like
>>> part of the preceding text and there isn't a clear demarcation of the
>>> start. I recommend that the body of the Figures be indented 3 or 4
>>> spaces.
>> I'd prefer let the RFC editor fix those if needed.
> I think that if we think a change in the formatting would make things
> clearer, we should do that ourselves, and not defer it to the RFC
> Editor.  *We* should be happy with the document before we send it
> over.

I agree with Barry here, especially since you are providing an -09 soon.

>>> Page 19, IANA Considerations: It seems from
>>> draft-leiba-coton-iana-5226bis that IANA would prefer IANA
>>> Considerations to be written in the past tense as if the actions had
>>> already been accomplished, presumably to minimize IANA re-writing
>>> effort. Thus, I suggest that consideration be given to changing the
>>> initial part, between the Section 9 heading and the Section 9.1
>>> heading, to the following and making similar changes in the remainder
>>> of the IANA Considerations Section:
> I'm with Stephen here: please leave this alone.  At this point, the
> document is making a request, and that's a fine way to put it.

I'm fine with leaving this as well.
>>> Page 20, Section 9.4: Suggest the "Meaning" for 2 be "an unformatted
>>> UTF8 string". There should probably be a Reference column. "a small
>>> positive integer" is undefined.
>> Oh come on. Small positive integer utterly clear as is unformatted
>> string in this context. UTF8 isn't needed here as this is not meant
>> to be seen by a user.
> With this and all other strings, the question isn't whether users are
> going to see it or not, but how implementors are supposed to know what
> a "string" is and how to create it.  If it's an arbitrary sequence of
> bytes, then it should say that, rather than "string".  If it's really
> a string and is meant to represent characters in some encoding system,
> then it needs to say either what encoding system that is (UTF-8,
> US-ASCII, or whatever) or that it doesn't matter and that any encoding
> can be used.  The latter only works if the string is never consumed by
> an entity other than the one that created it.

Thanks Donald & Barry.

Best regards,

> Barry


Best regards,