Re: [stir] PASSporT extensions: order of claims

Chris Wendt <chris-ietf@chriswendt.net> Wed, 14 March 2018 11:36 UTC

Return-Path: <chris-ietf@chriswendt.net>
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 DD3741271DF for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 04:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=chriswendt-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 3uzqlKxsUoWZ for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 04:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x234.google.com (mail-ua0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::234]) (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 D71E71242EA for <stir@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 04:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x234.google.com with SMTP id c40so1825508uae.2 for <stir@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 04:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chriswendt-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=KHfrnGiK1GOgaI/jfzfWiu0ou7+hvEBAMPf7LjK/ABI=; b=DTlz9EtwybQlKKan/X92SVd0Noxtz3m9fCkoeRJgg/rHnDVjAhZAw66SAbNiXBxmc0 H7ZxVi89/9mOOI+VtVSlKH7bDeefqM1IhQiMXPpnfapGl56pnftZo7PyBduJivtwPnAt KmwIYGAEnIvQhk+dPxnQb6IcQRnmEtCXrNd3uOgQEzUCZJDOKJ2ToSKAiwD7lhLCx4R7 PfCC69SosuYN/JSZW0ehWIV/jmVV7f3Ep6eqJ/bwwnRWjdglQwI47gWHhnvmlrrthTtz B6OBp3xZ72x+BCClVIaxY/vLOgAG9TWf6XJFMoX/GbmiLZKlHA3JUF9Cv0iJnwuwAYMy 2FSw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=KHfrnGiK1GOgaI/jfzfWiu0ou7+hvEBAMPf7LjK/ABI=; b=iXHIP2vMyafljo488sVl27TwUegnNlamD3naGOaRWeAO3048HTTGegBBAyX1PMNIil C+lB5E8mVmzebEqoM5WNE0wmOL5iQDl7Mn6AnoabVX8Zw83JtPjusDnhgSJ0wz+PqICm KbI5/Nvyue4yuwSeduXV5S142REXj/9izLkMKJHeZSgr//sJQYeDItEV5GMHF7CSoC9V coNRpkfm55N8s+HnB4L4kdtp4wwPHi9Rb4LyOSwKl7yy3YlzcZR4mq6KPxr2mU9ieX50 krlZbS7lYNwxKn1H2+mRRWIHZbHV5xuuByC5RDyYfzu7MXnb2eZ5JCL+UqgJxmLES4Jg DpFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EwJTq4QmcSV4CqG19H86SkVQjCr/BzW0/Oqzi4V8MdqyhNTE1t LOpZolU3lgyKyhrafSRZn79BCoDQjME=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELv4P4Ly5BFT+IkjUZa4wtfpOuSidDNnphfs0RnZXVJXOeTF/AjTersNQ/azMSkoNDKzHy/9iw==
X-Received: by 10.176.2.244 with SMTP id 107mr2823008uah.52.1521027368936; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 04:36:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.199.14.150] ([65.112.138.226]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k26sm1052963uag.45.2018.03.14.04.36.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Mar 2018 04:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Wendt <chris-ietf@chriswendt.net>
Message-Id: <08B1E835-CA5E-4636-AE0E-983F3EFA82C1@chriswendt.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0BB87491-61A7-4860-8C5C-0BC70B18A3E8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 07:36:05 -0400
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B6C200A0A@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se>
Cc: "Politz, Ken" <Kenneth.Politz@team.neustar>, "stir@ietf.org" <stir@ietf.org>, "adam@nostrum.com" <adam@nostrum.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B6C1D17C1@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B6C1D1804@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se> <8B0E0275-68BD-41E9-B128-589F13C06D66@chriswendt.net> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B6C2007A0@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se> <46946849EEFF3043A8FBCC3D102A2C1A3FCADE50@stntexmb13.cis.neustar.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B6C200A0A@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/hxUKf10pJkkqVkjvSJ57cs120jk>
Subject: Re: [stir] PASSporT extensions: order of claims
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 11:36:12 -0000

Perhaps its a bit over prescriptive, i think the intention was only to say that it should be documented what claims and provide order and examples.  It wasn’t to imply that it would be different or there would be implications of order or anything.

To step up a level, in general, JSON object key order never matters, it’s a key value object that you index on key, so order in most cases is arbitrary.  For PASSporT, we have a short form that is supported in RFC8224, where you don’t need to send the header/claims because those objects are already in the SIP INVITE.  So we needed a way to have the header/claims to be reconstructed in a predictable and reproducible way.  An therefore the dependency on order.

So again, yes we say you should say order in RFC8225, which i would say would inherently be the case with an example at a minimum.  A MUST might have been a bit strong, but i don’t see this as a huge concern.  I’d be curious to hear from others whether they think this is a real concern or not.


> On Mar 13, 2018, at 3:58 PM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>; wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  
> >Try RFC 8225, Section 9, perhaps? 
>  
> Ok, so if that’s a generic rule, why the statement saying that PASSporT extensions must specify the order?
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Christer
>  
> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com <mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 2:47 PM
> To: Chris Wendt <chris-ietf@chriswendt.net <mailto:chris-ietf@chriswendt.net>>
> Cc: stir@ietf.org <mailto:stir@ietf.org>; adam@nostrum.com <mailto:adam@nostrum.com>
> Subject: Re: [stir] PASSporT extensions: order of claims
>  
> Hi,
>  
> >I would agree with the text, the only caveat i would point out is that the extension definition has
> >no choice to the order other than alphabetic order, so the order is essentially implied.  So, it’s sort
> >of a technicality that maybe we didn’t anticipate, but i think technically you are correct.
>  
> Not sure I understand the has-no-choice part. Where is it said that the claims must be ordered in alphabetic order? We could for sure specify it that way, but based on your e-mail it seems like it is already specified somewhere?
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Christer
>  
>  
> 
> On Mar 10, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com <mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>  
> Section 8.3 of RFC 8225, that is.
>  
> From: stir [mailto:stir-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:stir-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
> Sent: 10 March 2018 15:26
> To: stir@ietf.org <mailto:stir@ietf.org>
> Cc: adam@nostrum.com <mailto:adam@nostrum.com>
> Subject: [stir] PASSporT extensions: order of claims
>  
> Hi,
>  
> Section  says:
>  
>    “Specifications that define extensions to the PASSporT mechanism MUST
>    explicitly specify what claims they include beyond the base set of
>    claims from this document, the order in which they will appear,…”
>  
> When looking at the extensions we are currently working on:
>  
> draft-ietf-stir-rph-03
> draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken-01
> draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-02
>  
> …I don’t see anything about the order in any of the documents.
>  
> I think it would be good to have a dedicated “Order of claims” section, or something similar, in each extension specification.
>  
> When looking at the examples in the drafts above, it seems like even the base claims are in different orders. Not sure whether there is an explicit requirement that they need to be in order, thought.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Christer
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> stir mailing list
> stir@ietf.org <mailto:stir@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_stir&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=ww1S9BHEcpE4MMUbgGQrsoL-SK3UCGY33Koaj2h9zYw&m=_DBdmUKpkUAUVv120PuHoMt-TVtTuzOHsfFQdAWmeFs&s=yYY6kvNSlx7W84nXLfYP7n4PSH0S7Uiq3VK2FI6iwEU&e=>