IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Composite Crypto-Key composition issue

Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com> Tue, 28 June 2016 16:30 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 BB54812D589 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:30:58 -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 MtsjX8LRpoVm for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x236.google.com (mail-lf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::236]) (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 0F44112D51F for <webpush@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id h129so15296372lfh.1 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=iFArwYY1jMsi+iv1IGVodcWu53DTPktQwj0oX6I2Mc8=; b=KbN2L3/kt8RyDGAc9UCztgC3/hYv+Cehy5Mik6auCMcrchAnQq2n4BsRGdrM/o+1LS e0Zs1IERswvNdBw9LoGirWraEDg/mPz5N8PlVY+v6dgtgCzm5o+joI11BTStULG29i7S CqEGBFG0sqoCUgcKwJqXFvv7SxlkBXYpzYCf6kQ3CKdnhcHzNw03Pb5ml/zbRdREG8hV 0NrlSHKw/+ooR3bkLA9hNi1vJkXpV/LXhbEWe0K+kEvtWrQBmFqfn14sU/ZAkRvDZuhX gFsjFEtF5zqY8vxYEhz6CLlNKhglxdwsOIXzgFpf+/2PUHwX3usQ8TUi/qoM41ueIQa7 snFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iFArwYY1jMsi+iv1IGVodcWu53DTPktQwj0oX6I2Mc8=; b=cYnS+dfzA/A0NUfPSAvkUsD7TwICnqOzhtKGYtlLodWY6eDN0HIRPxb2GVBECoZ8ps png0WO/ezW/+p7Nt1VQy3AOYE+NUk3VBBvF/LlZ7eOrX0rnCtMNND2ehayTPKPb1C0Ye 4KpQ0iTldagPvX9ctb4sU1pOBq3mUEK1zDnFa9868z/Gf1W95L/rQtrGPDAhW8qwP4Ww uYiRlgnnqbqzPQuZ/O3APWJG1XgTo/Mi7fKRDMUjtUDrrqRujVyCc5U0nMpiLmQ27TT4 hjV0MTE8ySbg7vIMbONcpwT8pt9WctC9mSFW++PaZRABCyTXNXgYKQTIqPbqRGIVH03k 4FNQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKDKDf12mKS0RyGVZpIa1waSUvuYa0L7+PW4WaD93mRzMR4YXkKGj/oLQ+xbHeOt+1OwW3xVoQPV1CyBgLN
X-Received: by 10.25.19.204 with SMTP id 73mr1293285lft.24.1467131454073; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.147.199 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+XEteOKrw9ANikCFcd1JETT+i0JFeXmzA1vnoA2vUfrw5ZvTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+XEteOKrw9ANikCFcd1JETT+i0JFeXmzA1vnoA2vUfrw5ZvTg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:30:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CALt3x6mo3hKdZeO4NYWfsFVWGVap=UEK_McOt76Pyw7LVji59Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: jrconlin@mozilla.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114064f02915bd0536592960"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/a2_Md8MLp8jhW3_p12iXITHZP38>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Composite Crypto-Key composition issue
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 16:30:59 -0000

Looks like we sent an e-mail at exactly the same time[1] about the same
issue, proposing the same solution :-).

I've created the following GitHub issue with a proposed PR to address the
issue:
    https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-encryption/issues/6

Thanks,
Peter

[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/UAbPwhb-_iu5Q4Ak9vE8sJKy4Ss

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:24 PM, JR Conlin <jconlin@mozilla.com> wrote:

> I believe there may be some confusion about how to create a composite
> Crypto-Key header.
>
> The Crypto-Key Header is used by several supporting protocols of WebPush
> (ECE, VAPID). The respective specifications state that the field uses RFCs
> 7230 & 7231 where each parameter list set is divided by commas, and each
> individual parameter is divided by a semicolon.
>
> The confusion arises in whether or not each list set should contain items
> specific for a given sub-protocol.
>
> For instance, our autopush server treats ECE and VAPID as separate
> entities and divides the set containing the dh= parameter from the set
> containing p256ecdsa=. It's my understanding that FCM does not follow this
> practice and will generate an error if a "," appears in the Crypto-Key
> parameter lists.
>
> Since this is a point of confusion and conflict, I believe it would be in
> the best interests of all if this was addressed in some manner so that
> future conflict and confusion can be avoided.
>
> (For what it's worth, I really don't care what the answer is; keep
> protocol parameter sets distinct to avoid potential future conflicts or
> combine all parameters into one big ol' hash. Just want to prevent future
> folk from swearing at us.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Webpush mailing list
> Webpush@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email