Re: [stir] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-stir-enhance-rfc8226-03: (with COMMENT)

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sun, 27 June 2021 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 EEDD73A0CF8 for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 10:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 tH4Pb3ylW6gG for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 10:07:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A5513A0CD5 for <stir@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 10:07:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0751300BF0 for <stir@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 13:07:09 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ALUEx5pcBNvp for <stir@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 13:07:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CDFF300B50; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 13:07:03 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <162474801422.28989.5347879566452947231@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 13:07:02 -0400
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <3891B50D-04F2-4FE1-B60E-FDEE5C7A90DC@vigilsec.com>
References: <162474801422.28989.5347879566452947231@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/Sef7m2EX2V6rI25PmwF3qgL2BHk>
Subject: Re: [stir] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-stir-enhance-rfc8226-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:07:23 -0000

Erik:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [S4] [comment]
> 
> * Given the example in section 5, it seems that mustInclude can be used
>  in conjunction with permittedValues.
> 
>  Perhaps amend the last sentence of the 2nd example to indicate this?
> 
>  "However, a verification service will not treat as invalid a PASSporT
>  it receives without a PASSporT "confidence" claim at all (unless also
>  appearing in a mustInclude claim)."
> 
>  or something...

Sure, we can be more explicit about that case.  How about:

   *  If a CA issues a certificate to an authentication service that
      includes an Enhanced JWT Claim Constraints certificate extension
      that contains the permittedValues JWTClaimName "confidence" and a
      permitted "high" value, then a verification service will treat as
      invalid any PASSporT it receives with a PASSporT "confidence"
      claim with a value other than "high".  However, a verification
      service will not treat as invalid a PASSporT it receives without a
      PASSporT "confidence" claim at all, unless "confidence" also
      appears in mustInclude.

Russ