Re: [Unbearable] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tokbind-https-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 26 June 2018 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: unbearable@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: unbearable@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 485621310FC; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 bzfV0r-arR-V; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 3D6E81310FD; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.95] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w5QIfGjO082135 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Jun 2018 13:41:20 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.95]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <94E6261D-7920-4C65-BDB3-A0B3144323C5@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B0A8960D-3DE0-4750-9190-5D1A6175276F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.4 \(3445.8.2\))
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 13:41:09 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOb9G3jTnOg6ucba2060EqObM8LEo9F16mCCvwdHaU9=A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Dirk Balfanz <balfanz=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tokbind-https@ietf.org, Tokbind WG <unbearable@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>, tokbind-chairs@ietf.org
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
References: <152589833077.4037.7403393365772291429.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADHfa2Aj9_-X-rtPR7OU-_cEXC=MnHpv88O_HTmB0-Yd-X_LLA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOb9G3jTnOg6ucba2060EqObM8LEo9F16mCCvwdHaU9=A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.8.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/unbearable/FtlFtydeVPibUWvApoU7hb8xROU>
Subject: Re: [Unbearable] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tokbind-https-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: unbearable@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"This list is for discussion of proposals for doing better than bearer tokens \(e.g. HTTP cookies, OAuth tokens etc.\) for web applications. The specific goal is chartering a WG focused on preventing security token export and replay attacks.\"" <unbearable.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/unbearable>, <mailto:unbearable-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/unbearable/>
List-Post: <mailto:unbearable@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:unbearable-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/unbearable>, <mailto:unbearable-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 18:41:39 -0000

Hi, thanks for the pointer.

The text in version 18 is sufficient to clear my discuss. I have one remaining (or maybe new) non-blocking question for section 6:

Are the “applications” from paragraph 3 the same as those from paragraph 2? It seems like paragraph 2 is talking more about local APIs (at least, I see that was mentioned in the text in version 17 but not in 18), but paragraph 3 uses an example of a signal from a server. (I can accept that the difference in control may be weak enough for web applications that the distinction does not matter.)

I did not check my editorial comments.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Jun 25, 2018, at 6:30 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> 
> Ben,
> 
> Does the following new text address your concern:
> https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi?modeAsFormat=html/ascii&url=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TokenBinding/Internet-Drafts/master/draft-ietf-tokbind-https-18.xml
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:26 PM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz=40google..com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> thanks for the feedback. Most of it is addressed in the new draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tokbind-https-16). See below (inline) for details.
> 
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:38 PM Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tokbind-https-14: Discuss
> 
> 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-tokbind-https/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I plan to ballot "YES", but I want to clear up once concern first:
> 
> After reading section 6 several times, I don't know what it means. I think it's [...]
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Substantive Comments:
> 
> §1.1: Please consider using the boilerplate from 8174 across the cluster. Both
> this and the protocol draft have lower case keyword instances.
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> §8.2:
> - Does it really make sense to wait for a user to request the keys be expired?
> I suspect the average user does this about never. Did the working group discuss
> possibly making the keys default to expiring after some period of time?
> 
> Yes, we did discuss it. This was chosen consciously to be in sync with cookies and their expirations / manual user-initiated purges.
> 
> - Why
> is the SHOULD in paragraph 2 not a MUST?
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> Editorial Comments:
> 
> §2:
> - Paragraph 1: "The ABNF of the Sec-Token-Binding header field is (in [RFC7230]
> style, see also Section 8.3 of [RFC7231]):" The open parenthesis before "in"
> seems misplaced. Also, as written the comma after "style" creates a comma
> splice. (Note that this pattern occurs elsewhere in the document.)
> 
> - Paragraph 3: The paragraph is a single hard-to-parse sentence. Please
> consider breaking into simpler sentences.
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> - example: Am I correct to assume the backslashes are just for print purposes
> and are not in the actual message? If so, please mention that.
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> § 2.1:
> - first paragraph, "Within the latter context...": There was no former context.
> I suggest "Within that context..."
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> - 2nd paragraph: The first sentence is hard
> to parse. I suggest breaking it into separate paragraphs, or restructure
> without the center-imbedding.
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> - 2nd to last paragraph: Does "SHOULD generally"
> mean the same as just "SHOULD"?
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> §5.1: 2nd paragraph: Unneeded comma in "... itself, to another server..."
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> §5.2,
> - last bullet: " (between client and Token Consumer)" seems more than
> parenthetical. Please consider removing the parentheses.
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> - paragraph after last
> bullet: The parenthetical phrase starting with "(proving possession...) is
> quite long and makes the sentence hard to parse. Given that the concept is
> covered in the immediately preceding paragraph, can it be removed?
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> §7.1 and §7.2: These sections seem to be copied from (or restate requirements
> in) the protocol and negotiation drafts. Can they be included by reference
> instead, or at least attributed?
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> §7.2, 2nd paragraph: This seams like a restatement of §7.1.
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> §8.3: Unneeded comma in first sentence.
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> Thanks again for the thoughtful comments!
> 
> Dirk.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unbearable mailing list
> Unbearable@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/unbearable
> 
>