[Unbearable] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-tokbind-protocol-17: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Thu, 26 April 2018 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: unbearable@ietf.org
Delivered-To: unbearable@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E732127909; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-tokbind-protocol@ietf.org, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>, tokbind-chairs@ietf.org, ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com, unbearable@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.79.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152476572557.22940.3607200722925408317.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:02:05 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/unbearable/pp9E641a94LqvRJzb6zaIUTPvxQ>
Subject: [Unbearable] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_d?= =?utf-8?q?raft-ietf-tokbind-protocol-17=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: unbearable@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 18:02:06 -0000

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tokbind-protocol-17: No Objection

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-protocol/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry for spamming but one more update (after reading draft-ietf-tokbind-https):
In sec 3: "This message  MUST be sent in the client's first application
protocol message." Why is that a generic requirement for all uses of token
binding and not just for HTTPS?

Update (after reading draft-ietf-tokbind-negotiation): Given different
negotiation mechanisms could be used, maybe it would make sense to say slightly
more about version handling in this doc as well, e.g. at least
explaining/requiring that version negotiation is done by the negotiation
protocol...

Maybe I'm just missing something but given the TokenBindingType and the
TB_ExtensionType share the same number space, how do I know if there is another
TokenBinding or and an TB_Extension following after the signature?

Nit:
Please spell out TPM (in sec 1).