Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme-12: (with COMMENT)
Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 31 October 2019 17:22 UTC
Return-Path: <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C60CA12008B; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
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=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 4yCSnCC4cHPb; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x134.google.com (mail-il1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::134]) (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 0011612006A; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x134.google.com with SMTP id j2so3951557ilc.10; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bF3j9J7/F0/s6rICjTNhA1p3q4gcEUC+8RbQLxrnKgQ=; b=BVgXatL3aIW3ASYbgB9RpH0v1pEE4Wr6i2ymM+8kG9BRikF6rrrqHpwBbz7ebUGnh7 VmEz+60NUztPPJ91o0k32kyvxk+ICP4nHHVr0nGCJ1tk+QHXacAki1G0a2FayIvddFlu ZurVTgoG2fh+mcLVYAMYva3WMIHedMbmTCNli1c9bwjlqjYalZGDnY8FDoPOB+f/ORIQ kC3XTWau6k6IPvCzu9p9HcTGahpt7EN7+bOpelmdTUb6UTTHG8tq8RpqmZKjmIOkj6vR joY/MxRgm+h96Xb7036kK9Gr1WQxFaUt6M+MA6NuKkEl0U1op/OuM4rX3vvdA/CzkHMD usng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bF3j9J7/F0/s6rICjTNhA1p3q4gcEUC+8RbQLxrnKgQ=; b=q0j5smA/5VLB3GpfGgKPqUGL3jdrNRiHyTVRuzeGEUocwkEWCYBBY7MuPuSDTT5jhJ B1IavNd5VJSoxTPVejJoMDY4AAcNDLOt75xBdmjcD0xgKpFenlbkp5djPu/y8aZqtAmj MKrV4zgtLfHC4S3dvQmfnwKNGOwnjYxnJVrZ8Rei2NctKJAnwNh+vz7yoMblKPlPKcLR n/f5AaxJfNEMGb8iix6OcT9KweAX1KTUVcW4VOf031omb+36t3SmHN64yp6EEY5kHvyB /Sue87iZrbAqCqIzt/IIPgl47MlKv93X+9m1IMEKnfL5oBJE5LJ5zMm3ZWGcJVaFCJtu qH4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWqcD3SCM8XvE3Z+S11CfUFV/Y2Rrf2o8gHctjdljQn4lUymgLz B+Eg8fbSTmHEzKBYYkfiGh9PoYDXF3fmzBGBEAA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz7VdCQEJD29GwmPyK8D7321qO+WqZcJUv6BOAZoesrt8z09u75pwgzu2e8Uz84c/NzP2txvjKatmXV+WNKjEk=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:60f:: with SMTP id x15mr7099335ilg.278.1572542553256; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157245577700.32490.10990766778571550817.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAGL6epJgyr_VUYgKCgxDcP5ObKWErtDCHxaX7JusUYPXu=a6jQ@mail.gmail.com> <a9ebadcc-36ae-4bdb-af69-05486eef2569@www.fastmail.com> <CAGL6ep+AK4BuGZ2Y1RMsomAYGLiy2NbEHgm5-941FLVKS6bY9Q@mail.gmail.com> <6ec209ae-72e9-4dd1-8d68-3ee1704f3d92@www.fastmail.com> <CAGL6epLQS9xqHybZLTk1qM4i_LaDWVk8-iF0-0e_osf271R_Rg@mail.gmail.com> <7B4921E1-66A3-4D6D-A943-8EC0F44195CC@ericsson.com> <CAGL6epLrJYPaaYwFQjP8Lk3Uc3PUogtfPyxE5FsoTMJs3GvsgA@mail.gmail.com> <4C17F34D-7046-4706-AE5C-FB7ADC4B1427@ericsson.com> <4EEBC37C-3C1B-42A9-883B-571FAE867C31@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EEBC37C-3C1B-42A9-883B-571FAE867C31@ericsson.com>
From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 13:22:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGL6epLp=x+Z3g+BZAYsmOob1pkchnvRObnJ7JfTSWES8xaEmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Cc: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "sipcore-chairs@ietf.org" <sipcore-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000047fc6a0596381827"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/p4bbWz8G7HyXQ9vn-OIR6YyQoa8>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sipcore/>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 17:22:39 -0000
Can you propose some text? Thanks, Rifaat On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:44 AM Christer Holmberg < christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > Perhaps we could add some text about the IMS use-case, in order to explain > the empty value? > > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > > > *From: *sipcore <sipcore-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Christer Holmberg > <christer.holmberg=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Date: *Thursday, 31 October 2019 at 15.52 > *To: *Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com> > *Cc: *"sipcore-chairs@ietf.org" <sipcore-chairs@ietf.org>, " > draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme@ietf.org" < > draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, > "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>, Alexey Melnikov < > aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> > *Subject: *Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on > draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme-12: (with COMMENT) > > > > Hi, > > > > >This IMS behavior would have been in violation of RFC3261 which specified > exactly 32 Hex characters. > > >So, this change should not make much of a difference in this case. > > > > In reality it probably doesn’t make a difference, but it would make the > IMS procedures “aligned” with the IETF spec. > > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 9:37 AM Christer Holmberg < > christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > The reason for the empty value comes from IMS and AKA, where you need to > include the user id already in the initial REGISTER request (this seems to > be missing from RFC 3310, but that’s a separate topic) in order for the > server to create the challenge, meaning that in the initial REGISTER > request you include an Authorization header field with the username > parameter carrying the IMS private user identity, the realm parameter and > the uri parameter. At this point you obviously don’t yet have the response, > so in IMS it is specified that the response parameter is inserted with an > empty value. > > > > WHY it was specified that way (instead of simply not including the > response parameter) I don’t know, but I do know that it has been > implemented and deployed that way for many years. > > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > > > > > *From: *sipcore <sipcore-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Rifaat > Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com> > *Date: *Thursday, 31 October 2019 at 15.20 > *To: *Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> > *Cc: *"sipcore-chairs@ietf.org" <sipcore-chairs@ietf.org>, " > draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme@ietf.org" < > draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, > "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on > draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme-12: (with COMMENT) > > > > Done. > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 9:13 AM Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote: > > Hi Alexey, > > > > I am fine with Paul's suggestion. > > Are you ok with "32*LHEX"? > > Yes! > > > > Thank you, > > Alexey > > > > Regards, > > Rfaat > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 7:22 AM Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> > wrote: > > > > Hi Rifaat, > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019, at 9:50 PM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote: > > Thanks Alexey! > > > > I am fine with the first two comments, and will fix these in the coming > version of the document. > > > > I am not sure I follow the 3rd one. Why do you see the need for a minimum > number of hex digits? > > You do say that the number of hex digits match the hash lenght, so it is > probably Ok. However empty value is never valid (and I am worried it might > hit some boundary condition bug in implementations), so prohibiting it in > ABNF would be the best. > > > > Best Regards, > > Alexey > > > > Regards, > > Rifaat > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:16 PM Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker < > noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme-12: No Objection > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I am agreeing with Alissa's DISCUSS. > > > > Also, I have a few comments of my own: > > > > 1) Last para of Section 2.1: > > > > 2.1. Hash Algorithms > > > > A UAS prioritizes which algorithm to use based on the ordering of the > > challenge header fields in the response it is preparing. > > > > This looks either wrong or confusing to me. I think you are just saying > here > > that the order is decided by the server at this point. > > > > That > > process is specified in section 2.3 and parallels the process used in > > HTTP specified by [RFC7616]. > > > > So based on the above, my suggested replacement for both sentences: > > > > A UAS prioritizes which algorithm to use based on its policy, > > which is specified in section 2.3 and parallels the process used in > > HTTP specified by [RFC7616]. > > > > 2) Last para of Section 2.4: > > > > If the UAC cannot respond to any of the challenges in the response, > > then it SHOULD abandon attempts to send the request unless a local > > policy dictates otherwise. > > > > Is trying other non Digest algorithms covered by "SHOULD abandon"? > > If yes, maybe you should make this clearer. > > > > For example, if the UAC does not have > > credentials or has stale credentials for any of the realms, the UAC > > will abandon the request. > > > > 3) In Section 2.7: > > > > request-digest = LDQUOT *LHEX RDQUOT > > > > This now allows empty value. I suggest you specify a minimum number of hex > > digits allowed in the ABNF. Or at least change "*LHEX" to "2*LHEX". > > > > > > > > > >
- [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft… Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on d… Christer Holmberg