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

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 16 August 2017 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 408621323C8; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 ew-B2s2dIbNh; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x233.google.com (mail-it0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::233]) (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 D15AE1321AC; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x233.google.com with SMTP id 77so11314074itj.1; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qo6uSLbZXqjXdOMcYzPTTzviiK45WYoKeoreptsbOP4=; b=jeix2Z8MmefOoOlF79vvy80j+4j/FDZko4r68ZvbEcu7khYMBJBM7y/S+TKfpqro5+ Gvq07qB1wWFal2H2RMEEBfnUFu6o9p50AUvX2Fz41eqVHwcqZOGjhMM/6QTcNcKzTAvT VxjRmysyaZZSr7e+x58OjhR9/LaEMYQRWzswU1snqXq5DtNHwPvFY5R5tlu9TxCg7y0P aHvEvRj8ZkYtbrJHFgh8/hMutQMJUMVEO7Ja/ApS9OizRRvb7ZNbW2VqrnfeuqkQCsVn kG6nx0i1UnjJOCAG9yU4LM5IvlKI0JT7JuSG3mTOObIpfEU3Oh+gjmy1MKO5kDRXR/Yj ySmQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qo6uSLbZXqjXdOMcYzPTTzviiK45WYoKeoreptsbOP4=; b=rGepY5/QaMwGtsEvTMOpScito7R5zsI93J/hKM+l76duMO40NnZhr13zLW/XN5uaC7 WGPp1ZYu64nDVYN8cOBkZl75FYG6akZfNtvDqIV7dQ1lvFEeeiHY3qVJuPbGQIdE4fQs bjSfOB0LuVVyuPkz9g4W+9kbygdGWahEkSOu9TlyCgqP5yx5/MTLAt6DhPd+Z/VHdCw/ FYV3JTkQqzw8Eb6GauNGVCRkaqwO/Yo4BntSJujk2zuatjTpW9IqtiqfPs8bcm9cnNaJ rFXYg131rTQ/Z7xneSieS4up/oQc9k6pN4Z2OdhiBKioGT1IrVoSLEbM7DjlNzVyA7yD RxCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5gguVcfc9RNGD5SNOQgRQNwmYximHwamfR0wSZUY+imX9smv8UY pVO5nEIw44k1jL1b+vPAhORoD1OYoQ==
X-Received: by 10.36.107.68 with SMTP id v65mr363063itc.129.1502842587206; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.164.42 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <150281999738.21016.2164260159984776251.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <150281999738.21016.2164260159984776251.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:16:26 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWoqRd9Y_xeoRh2cXG_GFG617__qeM=8PuLvApO7Vbk4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Tim Chown <tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk>, draft-ietf-webpush-encryption@ietf.org, webpush-chairs@ietf.org, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>, Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/oM4mElFQBblbV2bWdwmfC3Fe8fk>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-webpush-encryption-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: webpush@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 00:16:34 -0000

Hi Warren,

I resolved your nits here:
  https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-encryption/pull/19

On 16 August 2017 at 03:59, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>; wrote:
> Warren Kumari 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Firstly, thanks to Tim Chown for his helpful OpsDir review (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-webpush-encryption-08-opsdir-lc-chown-2017-08-01/
> ) and for your response.
>
> I only have nits on this document:
> 1:  I reviewed this and draft-ietf-webpush-vapid together. This document uses
> title case for "User Agent" (and many other terms), while
> draft-ietf-webpush-vapid and RFC8030 uses lower-case. Consistency would be nice
> here.
>
> 2: Section 2:
> "In addition to the reasons described in [I-D.ietf-webpush-protocol], this
> ensures that the authentication secret is not revealed to unauthorized
> entities, which can be used to generate push messages that will be accepted by
> the User Agent." -- this is ambiguous / confusing. It is unclear which which is
> which. I'd suggest rewording to something like "... to unauthorized entities,
> which would allow that entities to generate push messages that would be
> accepted by the User Agent as valid" (or similar)
>
> 3: Section 7.  Security Considerations
> "In particular, any HTTP header fields are not protected by the content
> encoding scheme." -- I think you may mean "In particular, no HTTP header fields
> are protected ..." (or similar)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Webpush mailing list
> Webpush@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush