[stir] "rcdi" vs MIME Content-Encoding

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 01 April 2024 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F13ABC1519AC for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 13:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.866
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.866 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_DISCARD=1.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, T_MIME_MALF=0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rLYAGiBoaJ7y for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 13:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F741C151075 for <stir@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 13:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (070-120-133-087.res.spectrum.com [70.120.133.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTPSA id 431KL2Nr027257 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Apr 2024 15:21:03 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1712002864; bh=8av90VV3vKSMnWEWPF1GaAaxBNdUhtu85qDojfrV7i8=; h=From:Subject:Date:Cc:To; b=NwGY/uNL0ZPuc45MtnbxS18XhTw0wuXbnfta+7J9SJK4jD0znM4c1MUlrWMpmSbUd 0yuidqgFcYgLOjBFTrk6U3dK/CSxBM6R7eGIfSvVeLyobDij1FbhAzJgiaFRhsprO6 WmTnzK91VbXhW1QWRj/0uFQsyb9KRZdLwmvj027I=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 070-120-133-087.res.spectrum.com [70.120.133.87] claimed to be smtpclient.apple
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_34B3053D-CA5F-4791-A61A-36E47678D40B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.500.171.1.1\))
Message-Id: <E7B3FBBB-672B-4CC2-AB32-B13C7759D861@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 15:20:57 -0500
Cc: "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@transunion.com>, Chris Wendt <cwendt@somos.com>
To: IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.500.171.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/FyviZZOahgB21Scy1EAzC-wVNl0>
Subject: [stir] "rcdi" vs MIME Content-Encoding
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited <stir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stir/>
List-Post: <mailto:stir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 20:21:10 -0000

Hi,

In thinking about the “rcdi” hashes and  RCD “icn” keys:

What if the target has Content-Encoding? Would the “rcdi” hash be over the raw or decoded data?

For example, lets say that I get the following headers when dereferencing the “icn” key:

> Content-Type: image/svg+xml
> Content-Encoding: gzip

Should the “rcdi” hash be over the compressed or uncompressed version of the data? I assume since draft-ietf-stir-passport-rcd-26 does not mention content-encoding, that the hash would be over the actual octets we get back on the wire prior to decoding. 

But I see that RFC 9399 (Certificate Logotypes), which seems like a similar-if-not-identical application, says the opposite for this specific example:

> Whether the SVG image is GZIP-compressed or uncompressed, the hash value for the SVG image is calculated over the uncompressed SVG content with canonicalized EOL characters, as specified above.
> 

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Ben.