Re: [Secdispatch] Updating/Replacing RFC 2660 ? (was Re: [dispatch] HTTP Request Signing)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Speaking as one of the authors of 2660, if we want to attack these
problems, I don't think it is really a suitable starting point, though
perhaps there are ideas we could steal.

-Ekr


On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 10:20 AM Dr. Pala <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Jeffrey, Justin, Mark, all,
>
> I have not had the time to read the proposals, but are you familiar with
> RFC 2660 ?
>
> Would that provide the authentication you are talking about for both
> requests and responses ?
>
> Is the proposal to update / replace the RFC or do you see it as something
> completely different ?
>
> Cheers,
> Max
>
> On 11/2/19 9:18 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>
> That's roughly what I was going to say. :) I'd like to avoid the scope
> creep of having WPACK take on request signing in addition to, effectively,
> response signing. It's *possible* that we could define an HTTP header in a
> general enough way that it would work for both purposes, and
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cavage-http-signatures-12#section-4 attempts
> to do that, but the problem spaces seem to be different enough that we
> should have separate groups write down the requirements for each side's
> signatures before deciding that a single header will work. It's not even
> clear to me that WPACK is going to end up defining an HTTP header, even
> though my draft currently does so.
>
> I'll be sure to attend the request-signing sessions in case they
> establish that I'm wrong about this.
>
> Jeffrey
>
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 3:39 PM Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the pointer to the BoF, I hadn’t seen that one. I am familiar
>> with the draft you linked though: The main difference is that the draft in
>> question is for a signed response, whereas the draft(s) I’ve pointed at are
>> for a signed request. Yes, they ought to be aligned, but the WG in question
>> seems to be much more focused on packaging responses together than dealing
>> with requests. If that new group also wants to take on request signing,
>> then by all means let’s do it there. But it’s not as clean a match as it
>> might seem on the surface, I think.
>>
>>  — Justin
>>
>> > On Nov 2, 2019, at 12:26 AM, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Justin,
>> >
>> > It's worth noting that there's a Working Group forming BoF, wpack,
>> being held in Singapore about a draft with similar goals:
>> >
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed-responses-07
>> >
>> > In particular, both this draft and Jeffrey's propose the Signature HTTP
>> header field, and seem to have at least partially overlapping use cases.
>> >
>> > If possible, it'd be good to avoid duplication of effort -- especially
>> in terms of evaluating security properties and "fit" into HTTP by the
>> security and HTTP communities, respectively. So, I'd suggest bringing it up
>> there instead.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 2 Nov 2019, at 8:59 am, Justin Richer <[e-mail]> 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
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>> >
>> > --
>> > Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Secdispatch mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Massimiliano Pala, Ph.D.
> OpenCA Labs Director
> [image: OpenCA Logo]
> _______________________________________________
> Secdispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch
>