[Webpush] Too strict Crypto-Key restriction imposed by webpush-encryption

Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com> Tue, 28 June 2016 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <beverloo@google.com>
X-Original-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE6112D5AE for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.126
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.126 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_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 pEwaEf0b99Xr for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x229.google.com (mail-lf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::229]) (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 BE2B312D5AB for <webpush@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id h129so15171446lfh.1 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=8YH0+dy/2x2zxZOULRz6Ws4WG3wssVvWVcPZGTjmvvo=; b=KQdp2k/9GIYZPNiZKTYHDLvLajkihJZLg86YaPofvLKdL0Rp/mt16qI0dOHaAY/o25 qbYbKamQYaQXcCJyWc9ri2ZFlVgRt6ZrUM2m71+KEpYBWuRgLeuHOwHbsWuIzIKGrH3s BcMXVu4Dlb1kZuYMzZRdKRBPrUNjs5ti/EHCFYROjPkNHhHq4tFxY3PvETUfFTuyFx2t 9KZJJUmCnJyFoUXYixdoHMEhtUx1w6tqJFF4KBixPeAuNU86HIWbnqYpKIw1H3OSKSlz cuKYQfkKtUP3by1i01Uk8l0aifCsH020izD7SqaEijNPOhCbOh0nPo0CSRTtcxAxZzf8 +sXA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=8YH0+dy/2x2zxZOULRz6Ws4WG3wssVvWVcPZGTjmvvo=; b=f50D7a+3lk3NwFZ9GiNOt+viVTP+h1Dly+S7GguLG+3Agm2PpK+HChg7bbyipiVSYe 0CWJ1CbYIgy5iRkGpukdI54kjh1LEhCEehnpbn9vwBstaXEaJRssrSHuNAYMoGacPZTm a5KvbXi8ehweozA+4gWkOSEuI8B/pbaTv+U5a0RJsFmGwtvQ2hxp3ygEJBpK1vpDOmLM yufMCH0RMGgl9hRUJPjSSQBpqjEwxgejEuRrZGK7fQYRh0ArXrnuSKdw6eBRXWXnsXZj jfOpLltY78fDVsdGNUizN35He1LaWGeM4SIUzmeXG8LH06VSYYZc79UsMkoQsfh8UcMs JWJQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLKJXxsr/BbTmCQ6JIlosWLnE4tlB02Maw9eRMwtrIk3ynNAXaRYsMEcEsftheSIe6c7G09F81EAkaarOJ/
X-Received: by 10.46.33.12 with SMTP id h12mr866513ljh.43.1467131061703; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.147.199 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:24:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CALt3x6ki+vx=cPg1SLR+vkm+Hh-ScQ7vRXKzJMi1WocQNyP=7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1142c5c8c5ef0a05365911ac"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/UAbPwhb-_iu5Q4Ak9vE8sJKy4Ss>
Subject: [Webpush] Too strict Crypto-Key restriction imposed by webpush-encryption
X-BeenThere: webpush@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of potential IETF work on a web push protocol <webpush.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/webpush>, <mailto:webpush-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/webpush/>
List-Post: <mailto:webpush@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:webpush-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush>, <mailto:webpush-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:24:28 -0000

For those not following GitHub:

There is a discrepancy between webpush-encryption[1] and webpush-vapid[2],
where the latter says to use two values in the Crypto-Key header which is
explicitly forbidden by the former.

I've detailed the issue in the following GitHub issue, with an accompanying
pull request relaxing the restriction to a maximum of one Crypto-Key field
having the `dh` parameter:

https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-encryption/issues/6

Thanks,
Peter

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-webpush-encryption-02#section-3.2
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-webpush-vapid-00#section-4