Re: [Webpush] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-webpush-vapid-03

Martin Thomson <> Wed, 28 June 2017 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA1512EB0B; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 16:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0lhYZe-n-4Ws; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 16:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABB8212EC2A; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 16:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id h22so43452089lfk.3; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 16:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=u/HhFhLLRZcU5z43GA4cKl/VbYnkux0RTu+AneGlxIY=; b=L5GtFivmyDiLgvG3xB31/bFgJIQQPJnlOYm3i5wZtNr+Rw3qajc5+0vOwW6CkS+g30 SLt9TGHJThbXI4BbN1Y7bIdzW52qqg+FmDNqwpyV92obYdgL7CWSj5K16RarI1Lqnust D1/B57aDa/I9y8cCFSv/TtF8VkViVl7hQXT/JLBmjXJSw9ydDa4nzxehvrPS4Ctk5IWU 12GlPMG0wK4TUSSw2yj1rN+8mJCc09v8xaot8dlTaL98azpqum4SWJyHmbXweYfpehDb Bqou8GyGUoAqJh5ZkCZ4ImcdrbTVvOfvT1ueP7aeggFFnckqunfkztvs+mH1TijPLV7n QDhA==
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:cc; bh=u/HhFhLLRZcU5z43GA4cKl/VbYnkux0RTu+AneGlxIY=; b=rmHBKxcHigmDMesgBehDXiGBMU88F0NHRo3KSEBKOrzdv5yZxJVopLg2AjLigcsJNZ m5ljWbdzM+YWWNoTQOhb0qsdHiuSVTGbVzJT7IP6uCR2YUg9xSq53r74d7lZ16HwV25b Zuo4v5WAzDkcWc+QuVTOpZVLDsombM44ud1J6/lF6nNmFuRKWdbrXNbKtHXLWEFrTuoT ItUHac3ZtrGSMGfss3kCN+3Fky9qSjR657GgXCq7SCjtheEF912szSEb3DEnLddJO+Ak a3QGC4pEUycoiM2w5OGx5w+yw9EE+F/k/KOPZP99xtKuIlOUOXhZQtOm+OVI/1ilRi8k B24Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOyV5urLhAr5YTD0EUiIWN1YSnM7ToxVoceEPnRLMqkzJ6L7Ny+t so9ZZ9S1L339f720DZf9M6xS6wIxrK79KzA=
X-Received: by with SMTP id u196mr3774462lff.19.1498692654005; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 16:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 16:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 16:30:53 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Robert Sparks <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-webpush-vapid-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of potential IETF work on a web push protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 23:30:58 -0000

Thanks Robert.

On 28 June 2017 at 14:38, Robert Sparks <> wrote:
> 1) The draft says that expiry claims MUST NOT be more than 24 hours from the
> time of the request. Consider adding some discussion of why 24 hours was chosen
> (vs some other arbitrary value), especially given the MUST NOT strength of the
> requirement.

Frankly, the decision is a little arbitrary, but it's where we landed.
It's a balance between competing concerns of reuse and the exposure to
theft and abuse that comes with reuse.  The overriding reason for a
MUST NOT strength is that it allows the server to reject requests with
bad claims.  I'll add a sentence to the security considerations, which
talk about the need for expiration and the implications of the MUST


> 2) The last paragraph of 4.2 says application servers create subscriptions, but
> it means to say that user agents do. Martin already addressed when I brought it
> up out-of-band with <>.
> 3) The last sentence of the abstract is missing a word. Perhaps s/subscription
> a/subscription to a/ ?

Fixed, thanks.

> 4) Consider using the RFC8174 update to RFC2119.