Re: [Secdispatch] [dispatch] HTTP Request Signing

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 05 November 2019 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC48120AE9; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:43:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.279
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.279 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 afmNvmOUVrUg; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:43:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E916120AB5; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:43:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id xA5Jh5bI088661 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 5 Nov 2019 13:43:07 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1572982988; bh=68db0cZo867PbSAwMiTTcmRl4TekzR2+H/3ilrUY/Hk=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=GZRWVfr0RrNPqAtEBN6COySzEyo2h8BHYYoygS1yG+nqdu6BwYZIp4V62G8n4o+yG Uxp1GMGRBQTI5P1DLdmrkCPJ7Ex2cTWjzrQDQ7BeKDG7NIdBoj1M56Dl+ulmB/OoGU vz4rRArwHMUjriDeGCH51fGmH+2m5nqWR/PSRL+o=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>
Cc: DISPATCH <dispatch@ietf.org>, IETF SecDispatch <secdispatch@ietf.org>
References: <E53D0610-2A30-483E-9BF5-BC83E7BC2CBF@mit.edu> <CAHBDyN5-Hj-Hsr_r7V4QWNBB7eeunSdN0YLAVROuq1LqJEERBA@mail.gmail.com> <279B9C8D-0614-482C-8839-FE10455331B6@mit.edu> <CAHbuEH5DQ7uRwe6=1dj80VLrkik6ceyGe+reeN+fmgVQmM9rcw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <fe297381-a97f-21d7-899d-e387ce6e2f3c@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 13:43:00 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH5DQ7uRwe6=1dj80VLrkik6ceyGe+reeN+fmgVQmM9rcw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------7048C49F4FD1DE109B9F8519"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/WXc4oHH9wOjFzjGhATkk6K-8kZk>
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] [dispatch] HTTP Request Signing
X-BeenThere: secdispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Dispatch <secdispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 19:43:12 -0000

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 <jricher@mit.edu 
> <mailto:jricher@mit.edu>> 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
>>     <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com <mailto:mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>>
>>     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 <jricher@mit.edu
>>     <mailto:jricher@mit.edu>> 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:
>>
>>         https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cavage-http-signatures
>>
>>         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
>>         dispatch@ietf.org <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Secdispatch mailing list
>     Secdispatch@ietf.org <mailto:Secdispatch@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch