Return-Path: <eranm@google.com>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com
 (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22B41A0272 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Thu,  6 Mar 2014 03:29:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.925
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No,
 score=-1.925 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,
 DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 i1lWjPKeHmai for
 <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  6 Mar 2014 03:29:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa0-x232.google.com (mail-oa0-x232.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id
 9F6D81A01C9 for <trans@ietf.org>; Thu,  6 Mar 2014 03:29:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id i7so2429278oag.37 for
 <trans@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 03:29:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :cc:content-type; bh=kb5Vrr6fqmLWPjdELOyKsjaL44IFWId072jGbof2fe0=;
 b=GS9S+CN9+ZMEz5ZiIQLMUbQPf+i48f5EXVf9xui0oFX+i99c6ENRb9u+STqjPIMixi
 ic8kOwrEV3ayJo11IbDYAc9rQreq3Ud2ePLiqilND5V5Cf7FaEDYKhyVhpfVoDGE8fmO
 bqvCaEEBu05CF4gDpvyWKeue2y2s1R0pe00H+yyR/NKvudwzVjyOnGca/SfI8YcxL9Cg
 +XdXP3gPzxsjEq1ZMqzNMDHfWIVvRoXefCB1/BZgV8xmM6hzBtGlaaV8ESTf9OAK0GIm
 iZFW2k7+Uw/ASU3TGvQi8ABXgtWFA/+FK5ov4RWew1jkHc0bjNVywFLtub9192gSCfUM S4gg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net;
 s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
 :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=kb5Vrr6fqmLWPjdELOyKsjaL44IFWId072jGbof2fe0=;
 b=Em22HJo6zt0nA5UCthBXJCr/evH5DsjF+AzcA0YxJcCu6dS1zdg01k5RublKt245zM
 +z83Pwa1+SZ5UfmYre42iK9BUZKcUFveqtbfTaJy+48UF01JlDHlnVaW2h/NlELtQ9A9
 6U357sN8I8Hp3NniXsuSjTbb1pbkv4ur5rPKEbRXWV9p6jGywKNRQV7P16zV86W4fWxk
 1o58X3JOqZPVj7DIOtNBX6ihkYqQfTFAw/V3yJHg9W4CqTApvvZFMa7dZXmWJ5VAn8a5
 JisLUbVjjvcgX3pcYMPAZVOHjWV6m1VNI1uioFLSniOf3qtVgYMa1zZvIuEejODYnrpa uD4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl5MMz4x6kmQp3MpcfWNIzOi7Rh0QvgPqAyXzlr52Sj+VGsMPAJ029Me6pjjTFE7j39J8+nYHb+mYgN4rBpYaPqwnO9Viw6pL+aN/EeuT/cEi2DQIa2sKic1NdiT20lT3eWgRibAv3ewMAxK2DgQI3XQsIDV3aZ+Vqsp26kENvRGi1YQlbhABQedN1KnZEJgLjVGmn2
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.73.164 with SMTP id m4mr5244810oev.8.1394105390637;
 Thu, 06 Mar 2014 03:29:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.142.198 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 03:29:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwipgTevGFqs0PphNTpn=1ZZgSjVVvMe2Srco4JN8F_fQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+LwipgTevGFqs0PphNTpn=1ZZgSjVVvMe2Srco4JN8F_fQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 11:29:50 +0000
Message-ID: <CALzYgEctzKxXJzG43qJJbqsZmT36Z+TkP_woZAYZ3ha2vhSKyg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eran Messeri <eranm@google.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135f1b096d94604f3ee741f
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/WqsDoXExStYGmtP9RZXWtGXJJjE
Cc: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Trans] Some comments on the Web Service part
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list
 <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>,
 <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>,
 <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:29:56 -0000

--001a1135f1b096d94604f3ee741f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>wrote:

> 1) This is a specified service, shouldn't it be registered as a
> .well-known service?
>
> http://example.com/.well-known/ct/1
>
> This means that the CT log can play nice with other services on the same
> server.
>
> (obviously have to replace ct with what we register)
>
Could you please point to the standard specifying how these well-known
services are defined?
Regardless, it seems to be independent of the commands specification that a
CT log must conform to.
The Google-managed logs have an address that conforms with the rest of the
HTTP APIs Google offers. We technically could offer
https://ct.googleapis.com/.well-known/..., if it provides strong benefit.
Since we expect few, well-known logs, I can't see the benefit in
registering it as well-known service since very few domains are expected to
offer it (i.e. there is no benefit it making it easily discoverable).

>
>
> 2) The command should be present in the JSON request.
>
> Do you mean this as an addition or instead of specifying the command in
the request line?
Is there a specific web traffic management system that you know/expect to
cause problem?


> HTTP request lines are hard to protect with message level authentication.
> Putting the command in the content means that it is covered independently.
>
> Reason this matters is that the request line and headers tend to get
> 'battered' as they pass through enterprise scale web traffic management
> systems. The same is true of TLS authentication that tends to get stripped
> out at the front door by some sort of message router.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Trans mailing list
> Trans@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
>
>

--001a1135f1b096d94604f3ee741f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <span dir=3D"l=
tr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:hallam@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">hallam@gmail.=
com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">1) This is a specified service, shouldn&#=
39;t it be registered as a .well-known service?<br clear=3D"all">
<div><br></div><div><a href=3D"http://example.com/.well-known/ct/1" target=
=3D"_blank">http://example.com/.well-known/ct/1</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>This means that the CT log can play nice with other ser=
vices on the same server.</div><div><br></div><div>(obviously have to repla=
ce ct with what we register)</div></div></blockquote><div>Could you please =
point to the standard specifying how these well-known services are defined?=
</div>
<div>Regardless, it seems to be independent of the commands specification t=
hat a CT log must conform to.=C2=A0</div><div>The Google-managed logs have =
an address that conforms with the rest of the HTTP APIs Google offers. We t=
echnically could offer=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://ct.googleapis.com/.well-know=
n/..">https://ct.googleapis.com/.well-known/..</a>., if it provides strong =
benefit.</div>
<div>Since we expect few, well-known logs, I can&#39;t see the benefit in r=
egistering it as well-known service since very few domains are expected to =
offer it (i.e. there is no benefit it making it easily discoverable).</div>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>2) The=
 command should be present in the JSON request.</div>

<div><br></div></div></blockquote><div>Do you mean this as an addition or i=
nstead of specifying the command in the request line?=C2=A0</div><div>Is th=
ere a specific web traffic management system that you know/expect to cause =
problem?</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px =
0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-l=
eft-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div></div><div>HTTP req=
uest lines are hard to protect with message level authentication. Putting t=
he command in the content means that it is covered independently.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Reason this matters is that the request line and header=
s tend to get &#39;battered&#39; as they pass through enterprise scale web =
traffic management systems. The same is true of TLS authentication that ten=
ds to get stripped out at the front door by some sort of message router.</d=
iv>
<span class=3D""><font color=3D"#888888">
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>-- <br>Website:=
 <a href=3D"http://hallambaker.com/" target=3D"_blank">http://hallambaker.c=
om/</a><br>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Trans mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Trans@ietf.org">Trans@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans" target=3D"_blank">h=
ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>

--001a1135f1b096d94604f3ee741f--

