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

stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Wed, 01 April 2015 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 A9DC71A19F0; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 ghQ7Xk9WxQ4I; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D2671A06FD; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE53BEDB; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 18:36:46 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VjFzOwdTJ-r6; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 18:36:44 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [86.46.29.244]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF1BEBE8F; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 18:36:44 +0100 (IST)
X-Priority: 3
To: hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net
From: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
In-Reply-To: <551C2568.3050301@gmx.net>
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> <551C2568.3050301@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 17:36:43 +0000
Message-ID: <o12wc7.nm5299.2vaes4-qmf@mercury.scss.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/YBxy6YLxFXHPR5R8c8qtvbMnu1s>
Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@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 17:36:50 -0000


On Wed Apr 1 18:05:44 2015 GMT+0100, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> 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.


No. Put in the bcp number and not the rfc number.

S 

> 
> 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
> >>
> 
>