Re: [Secdispatch] [dispatch] HTTP Request Signing

Kathleen Moriarty <> Tue, 05 November 2019 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A85561208AB; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:46:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zSKAKrZRZeve; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:46:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F24371200F4; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:46:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id t4so7232100otr.1; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 11:46:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bgHWsI7fNrkOKyVIIFWWy2YB3IB/ZL3vpDSSARiGuoU=; b=H/+Q24SIA8JSSckojV32ZshrRSjshtJ6thGaJG/ddV0pURKOKAVgTMKsLINuRrm3gE 1PL9AeVfSD6fF4gpr1aKA4rk8n/DZoTC1J18lEAzGnvq0w2R56zBpi2nhoNmpzS0ghxA S1fVM5hmLHlWZUzIy9LUv58oVmb0YQ/wN9HtsJQxX0uozfxzADt3OZ4n6I8c6bv+YdNY ym8B7x8FbTfvkWN3GtNJPH1vSf+sgcrupv5NXsLg7eJGcN/mHXggD1ID1kPlhZegf9vQ nuoYWDcOzChtSycZu0vYw/hG5b3K0KfT4HwLMK8V2bdRHSySIp55g45viWc28nh2clMF xTPQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bgHWsI7fNrkOKyVIIFWWy2YB3IB/ZL3vpDSSARiGuoU=; b=YI14aVz5z8VG7rlQXxQlVwasdEKi2NYQGnn2iziTMwER+LFOGBZyDSlpg5A3y8PYRG oCfrQd4Z63lxMU+N0uh4yRhUqhMPTcq5mnEL954LOPa6eOJ51BGDITZyPBrK85fazEW4 ZxNGBUTSaPrEXC9BV2VPbhGyF3t9KAtMf7Kbe0ZczDC3wUDuzxpKRon+FOo614bRZGB7 w31T/evh59BlRaXLXvCnTIlhEGVSO+1JNMt7axshCKMJj0/EToraesm57ZWYVkTteamI bKZ0AjgQkLc5yzbu8mUH0mSKASoSv8i7RLCyw6S4dtrpokm0rnpgh0L7mMe2tRPCEBgq 0QTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXdbwQAMV2Mf5qdsL8FfhdIx+sx9Qm1XojZAPbfsgVkQVaj5jbS PiNTX6+ZLLujr510mnc9oLFaBjullo+IXJHX/F8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwDP23Tn2Zdpdo1r+gEbIh2L0asG4vWabF75sz7xvtw8FH7Bkhzc5vnTOV6y9uJXV6vGLH/DDeaxTlcQv3UC0E=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6a10:: with SMTP id g16mr3924387otn.224.1572983191160; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 11:46:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 14:45:54 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Adam Roach <>
Cc: Justin Richer <>, DISPATCH <>, IETF SecDispatch <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000058cc4a05969eb06e"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] [dispatch] HTTP Request Signing
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Dispatch <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 19:46:35 -0000

OK, it's on the posted agenda.

Best regards,

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 2:43 PM Adam Roach <> wrote:

> Given that DISPATCH meets in the first Monday morning slot, I think this
> plan makes the most sense. Justin (or the DISPATCH chairs) can give a very
> short description of the purpose of the proposed mechanism, and let
> interested parties know that the discussion will take place in SECDISPATCH.
> /a
> On 11/5/19 10:59 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> We have the time at SecDispatch, so should I just add it
> considering DISPATCH has a full agenda?
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:56 AM Justin Richer <> wrote:
>> A number of the people involved with implementing the drafts that I’d
>> like to present are involved in IETF in different places, but none for
>> pushing this draft to date. If this work finds a home, I think we’d be able
>> to get a lot of that external community to participate in whatever list
>> ends up hosting the work.
>> I’m fine with presenting at only one of DISPATCH or SECDISPATCH instead
>> of both, but since this sits squarely at the intersection of the two
>> communities it might make sense for me to just introduce the concept (~1
>> min) at whatever meeting I’m not giving a full presentation at.
>>  — Justin
>> On Nov 4, 2019, at 3:02 PM, Mary Barnes <>
>> wrote:
>> Personally, I'd rather not have the presentation twice, recognizing of
>> course, that not everyone would be able to attend one or the other. But, we
>> will have recordings and as is oft stated, ultimately decisions happen on
>> mailing lists.  And, I appreciate and agree with Jeffrey not wanting
>> feature creep in WPACK.  One objective of DISPATCH has been to ensure that
>> work that is chartered is discrete enough to finish in a timely manner.
>> You mention other communities that are interested in this.  Will they be
>> participating or have they participated in IETF?    It's hard for chairs to
>> judge consensus to work on something when the communities interested in the
>> work are not participating in IETF.  Mailing list participation is
>> sufficient.
>> DISPATCH agenda is pretty full right now, so this would have to fall into
>> AOB at this juncture if ADs and my WG co-chair agree that we should discuss
>> in DISPATCH.  And, perhaps whether it gets a few minutes in SECdispatch
>> might be informed on how it goes in DISPATCH, if we have a chance to
>> discuss it, since you need the agreement that this is a problem IETF should
>> solve from both areas.
>> Regards,
>> Mary
>> DISPATCH WG co-chair
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 5:00 PM Justin Richer <> wrote:
>>> I would like to present and discuss HTTP Request signing at both the
>>> DISPATCH and SECDISPATCH meetings at IETF106 in Singapore. This I-D has
>>> been floating around for years now and has been adopted by a number of
>>> different external groups and efforts:
>>> I’ve spoken with the authors of the draft and we’d like to find out how
>>> to bring this forward to publication within the IETF. I’m targeting both
>>> dispatch groups because this represents the intersection of both areas, and
>>> I think we’d get different perspectives from each side that we should
>>> consider.
>>> There have been a number of other drafts that have approached HTTP
>>> request signing as well (I’ve written two of them myself), but none has
>>> caught on to date and none have made it to RFC. Lately, though, I’ve been
>>> seeing a lot of renewed effort in different sectors, and in particular the
>>> financial sector and cloud services, to have a general purpose HTTP message
>>> signing capability. As such, I think it’s time to push something forward.
>>> I’ve reached out to the chairs for both DISPATCH and SECDISPATCH to
>>> request a presentation slot.
>>> Thank you, and I’ll see you all in Singapore!
>>>  — Justin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dispatch mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> Secdispatch mailing list
> --
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing listdispatch@ietf.org


Best regards,