Re: [Webpush] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-webpush-encryption-08: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

Thanks ekr, your PR is here:

  https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-encryption/pull/20

I ripped off your text.

On 16 August 2017 at 10:22, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-webpush-encryption-08: 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-webpush-encryption/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Moving to No Objection because my DISCUSS is fixed in:
> https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-encryption/commit/645a04b3b86ffe10322134e27a3d3c5eb5a8b06b
>
> Note, I think technically only the UA needs to do point verification if the app
> generates a fresh key as implied by S 2. It would also be nice to have a cite
> to how to do the point verification. This text can be stolen from TLS 1.3.
>
> S 1.
>    This document describes how messages sent using this protocol can be
>    secured against inspection, modification and falsification by a Push
>    Service.
>
> "forgery" is more customary than falsification.
>
> S 3.3.
>
>    key_info = "WebPush: info" || 0x00 || ua_public || as_public
>
> You should make clear that the string is not null-terminated. Ugh, I know.
>
> S 3.4.
> You should clearly separate which pieces are defined in this document
> and which are defined in the HTTP encryption document.
>
>