[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-08
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Wed, 05 April 2017 20:47 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C9411294AF; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 13:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.49.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149142527327.21912.5654685591478038284@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:47:53 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/UIgNGCzv3J9Ls2px7XQxkd5Wgn4>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-08
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 05 Apr 2017 20:47:53 -0000
Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review result: Ready 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. Document : draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-08 Summary: This document is ready for publication as Proposed Standard (except perhaps for one recommendation) This document defines a content encoding for encrypting the contents of an HTTP message that facilitates storing the encrypted contents and decrypting the content for rendering incrementally (before the full content is received). The draft is clear, and implementation should be straightforward. It's security considerations section is detailed. I did not verify the math that went into the provided examples. My only concern is that the document suggests it would be ok to use a counter to provide a unique salt value for each message. I suspect that provides the kind of information leak the draft discusses avoiding. I also pointed out a couple of nits to the editor, and those are addressed already in his working copy (on github).
- [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ht… Robert Sparks
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Martin Thomson
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Robert Sparks
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Martin Thomson