Re: [Unbearable] Thurs 9am-10am in Lugano: additional TB TTRP meeting

Brian Campbell <> Mon, 03 April 2017 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91B411294DA for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 11:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.198
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, THIS_AD=2.198] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i2G7Cxtv6YU6 for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 11:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C2E71294B8 for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 11:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 81so127822643pgh.2 for <>; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 11:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gmail; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Z80+QJSk1gYo09NqIQdhGITM+8DMEpYM0kFbqijTGho=; b=FTvHb5ZGmYXwbXx5NJjj8duPYiuT12tTM2Tz2zbTHsF4i4SIJB19boC2xHFU+I5Gfo ahDBcOv497Iv8BB/uPrZy/tHt9QQ9SZ15AYviZsd5LmNbS6XSIOSFsBdMppKmNVWYGvN 7XsVdR5C4tkT/2N/CjT54zTi7mvD7Kr7spJHE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=Z80+QJSk1gYo09NqIQdhGITM+8DMEpYM0kFbqijTGho=; b=g8oXne+5aidpJOQEWwpG41Q3co5/YyK6bZmSpfBC3zFYrcQpVFltqy/ZzZA6i94rTb 8yairyH0tg2YU7ywTg9nZi/D1HHBbAcy6bxSNAq17dj69eYI+pzkDbqIsWUGhNZDV2UN rqyNkMNdhs6GUl24rK+AA6nR2pI+Xoym2Sl+oL3aLWncGaeOTxbQFb7uwoSvMD/i3wRQ v4aE/9QtxEoBQqqtZwHDzaDNRv/Yd7zAoKgDpHIC8Llpb5mux2sXlY/la7wx0IK9envp 5sQrdHEYPNAQYJZPvOFpN5NT8qv5RbnqV5beCL4e2YCcsOfiW/LcZB4pwm6KM5QKD/9B x/hg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3p1xPB20zwEPTGzo1Y3jgrS13mJPUFZCSC77ldEmR4PB8C30FGTRas/c5qPaFnROmUBdZTrKN0onozsRgX
X-Received: by with SMTP id i131mr19237999pgc.103.1491242871492; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 11:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 11:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Brian Campbell <>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 12:07:20 -0600
Message-ID: <>
To: IETF Tokbind WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045c3bfca12fe0054c47094d
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Unbearable] Thurs 9am-10am in Lugano: additional TB TTRP meeting
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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.\"" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:07:53 -0000

Thanks to the several people who came out on Thursday morning to discuss
the approach around TTRP & TB.

The (more than rough) consensus that morning was that it was more
appropriate for the TTRP to do the validation of the Token Binding Message
in the Sec-Token-Binding header. That is contrary to the approach described
in -00 of draft-campbell-tokbind-tls-term
<>. In order
to move forward and facilitate discussion,I plan to write a new draft that
reflects that preference of having the TTRP do the validation. Don't have
an ETA on that just yet but I'll post it to this list when I have something

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Brian Campbell <>

> Unfortunately, the presentation and discussion on Token Binding and TLS
> Terminating Reverse Proxies was cut short by the end of Monday's meeting.
> I would like to invite (or maybe beg) anyone who's interested in, or has
> input into, the topic to meet again this week to discuss it more. Ideally
> I'd like to have some sense of consensus on a preferred approach so I can
> proceed with document work.
> I've reserved Lugano, the attendee sign-up room, for an hour starting at
> 9am on Thursday (trying to find a good time was hard, sorry, I hope this
> works okay for folks) for this ad hoc meeting.
> Lugano is on the 2nd floor. See
> meeting/98/floor-plan?room=lugano#chicago-swissotel-floor-2
> The slides that were partially presented at yesterday's meeting are
> attached for background and context.
> Hope to see many of you there!